Bug 506168 - Review Request: rubygem-allison - A modern, pretty RDoc template
Review Request: rubygem-allison - A modern, pretty RDoc template
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Parag AN(पराग)
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-06-15 16:02 EDT by Mamoru TASAKA
Modified: 2009-06-24 15:19 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-06-24 15:19:49 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
panemade: fedora‑review+
kevin: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2009-06-24 03:00:02 EDT
Review:
+ package builds in mock (rawhide i586).
koji Build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1415422
- rpmlint message for SRPM and for RPM.
rubygem-allison.src: W: strange-permission rubygem-allison-2.0.3-allison-path-symlink.patch 0600
==> Fix this
+ source files match upstream url
da73e1dc3856ec3c0fef09a8f5f390743303ed69  allison-2.0.3.gem
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc is present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Not a GUI application

Suggestions:
This is first time I am reviewing ruby package.
1)Ruby packaging guidelines suggest
gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gemdir} --force %{SOURCE0}
whereas in SPEC its
gem install --local --install-dir $(pwd)%{gemdir} --force --rdoc -V %{SOURCE0}
==> Though its same if you like can you use %{buildroot} instead $(pwd)

2) Not sure but see Documentation files getting installed at /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/allison-2.0.3. Can they go to %doc?
Got confused how following got evaluated for main rpm package
%doc %{geminstdir}/[A-Z]*

APPROVED.
Comment 2 Mamoru TASAKA 2009-06-24 03:15:20 EDT
Thank you!

(In reply to comment #1)
> rubygem-allison-2.0.3-allison-path-symlink.patch 0600
> ==> Fix this
- Will fix

> This is first time I am reviewing ruby package.
> 1)Ruby packaging guidelines suggest
> gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gemdir} --force %{SOURCE0}
> whereas in SPEC its
> gem install --local --install-dir $(pwd)%{gemdir} --force --rdoc -V %{SOURCE0}
> ==> Though its same if you like can you use %{buildroot} instead $(pwd)

- At this case $(pwd) is %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version} !=
  %{builddir}. Now I have submitted a proposal to move the directory
  to expand the Gem file from %buildroot to %_builddir, see:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Gem_expand_stage_change

  Now I am waiting for someone to comment on my draft.

> 2) Not sure but see Documentation files getting installed at
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/allison-2.0.3. Can they go to %doc?
> Got confused how following got evaluated for main rpm package
> %doc %{geminstdir}/[A-Z]*

- This is usual for RubyGem packages. We usually don't move these
  document files (such as LICENSE or so) to %_defaultdocdir because
  $ gem contents <gemname> expects there (and Rakefile won't work
  if it is moved from %geminstdir)


New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name:       rubygem-allison
Short Description:  A modern, pretty RDoc template
Owners:             mtasaka
Branches:           F-11 F-10
InitialCC:          (nobody)
Comment 3 Kevin Fenzi 2009-06-24 14:15:16 EDT
cvs done.
Comment 4 Mamoru TASAKA 2009-06-24 15:19:49 EDT
Rebuilt on all branches, submitted push requests on bodhi, closing.

Thank you for the review and CVS procedure!

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.