Spec URL: https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-minitest5.spec SRPM URL: https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-minitest5-5.27.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: minitest provides a complete suite of testing facilities supporting TDD, BDD, mocking, and benchmarking. Fedora Account System Username: mtasaka This package is for preparation for updating ruby to 4.0.0, which will update rubygem-minitest to 6, still many packages on Fedora are not ready for minitest6.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9940426 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2424184-rubygem-minitest5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09940426-rubygem-minitest5/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-minitest5 Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Taking for a review
Actually is the review even needed? I don't think it is needed for "compat" packages. ~~~ The package is being created so that multiple versions of the same package can coexist in the distribution (or coexist between EPEL and RHEL). The package MUST be properly named according to the naming guidelines and MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same package. ~~~ This was quoted from: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_exceptions
Since I am already looking: # The description refers to `minitest/unit` on several places The new upstream description was modified to `minitest/test` # Not required `BuildRequires: rubygem(hoe)` I don't think `hoe` is required for build. It can be safely dropped IMHO. # Use standardized `gem build ../%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec` There is `mv ../%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec .` in `%prep` section later followed by `gem build %{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec`. The `gem2rpm` would leave the `mv` and used `../%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec` in the `gem build` step. # Leave tests and other files in -doc subpackage I would leave the tests and other files in -doc subpacakge. They won't hurt IMHO.
One additional thing to consider is adding `Provides: rubybgem(minitest-mock)`. This in theory could help with Minitest 6 compatibility. OTOH, I am not sure but I suspect that downside of this might be that DNF will prefer single `rubygem-minitest5` package over installing `rubygem-minitest` + `rubygem-minitest-mock`, which would be preferable. Thoughts?
Marking APPROVED since there are not blockers.
Okay, anyway thank you for review! At least I will check rubygem(hoe) BR dependency later. > One additional thing to consider is adding `Provides: rubybgem(minitest-mock)` Well... difficult because as you say I cannot expect how dnf handles this. For now I will leave as it is: when it is found that it is preferable, we can add this virtual Provides later.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-minitest5