Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://wakko.is-a-geek.com/~brett/rubygem-facade.spec SRPM URL: https://wakko.is-a-geek.com/~brett/rubygem-facade-1.0.4-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: A module that helps implement the facade pattern
One more thing I forgot to add: This is my first package review request for Fedora, so I'm also going to need a sponsor.
Some notes: * Unneeded macros - %ruby_sitelib does not seem to be used. * define -> global - Now Fedora recommends to use %global instead of %define for some reasons: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Build_Architecture_and_File_Placement * License - README says facade is under "Artistic 2.0" * About Source0 - For gem files, please consider to use http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem because with this URL you won't have to change "61520". * Requires/BuildRequires - Please refer to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Gems ! Some Requires are missing. - For BuildRequire'ing gem module, using virtual dependency is preferred to using the actual rpm name, ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Perl_Requires_and_Provides i.e. use "BuildRequires: rubygem(rake)" instead of "BuildRequires: rubygem-rake" - "Requires: ruby >= 1.8.2" is not needed (but please check the wiki page above) * %setup, %build - Please write %setup, %build macro (even if they are empty) * Macros usage should be consistent - Use macros consistently. If you want to use %mkdir_p, please use %rm for consistency - As you defines %geminstdir, please use the macro in %files * Directory ownership issue - Some directories are not owned by this package properly, and some directories which should not be owned by this package are actually owned by this package. Please read: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories and make it sure that all directories which are newly created during the install of this package are correctly owned by this package. * Test - As this package installs some files into under %geminstdir/test/, please create %check stage and execute some test programs in the stage.
On more thing * BuildArch - Looks like this package should be noarch.
New package and spec file uploaded to my webserver. Please take another look.
For -2: * Requires - Still some Requires are missing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines * "Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8" is missing. * Also, for consistency I usually suggest to add "BuildRequires: ruby(abi) = 1.8". * About the following line: ---------------------------------------------------------- %{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}%{_libdir} ---------------------------------------------------------- - Perhaps "%{_mkdir_p} %{buildroot}%{gemdir}" is correct. * Directory ownership issue - Still directory ownership issue is not correctly handled. ! If you try # rpm -ivv rubygem-facade-1.0.4-2.fc12.noarch.rpm, it will show: ---------------------------------------------------------- D: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/facade-1.0.4 directory created with perms 0755, no context. D: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/facade-1.0.4 directory created with perms 0755, no context. D: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/facade-1.0.4/lib directory created with perms 0755, no context. D: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/facade-1.0.4/test directory created with perms 0755, no context. ---------------------------------------------------------- Then for example: ---------------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/facade-1.0.4/README rubygem-facade-1.0.4-2.fc12.noarch [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/facade-1.0.4/ file /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/facade-1.0.4 is not owned by any package ---------------------------------------------------------- i.e. rubygem-facade binary rpm creates the directory %geminstdir to install "README" under there, however %geminstdir itself is not correctly owned by rubygem-facade, which is wrong. Again please check https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories especially: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories#Common_Mistakes and modify the %files entry. ! Especially: For example ------------------------------------------------------------ %files %{geminstdir}/lib/ ------------------------------------------------------------ contains the directory %geminstdir/lib and all files/directories/etc under %{geminstdir}/lib. ! When fixing %files entry, please also check the section https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplicate_Files By the way I will appreciate it if you post the full URL of your srpm/spec on this bugzilla when you upload the new ones so that we can find them easily.
Ok. I've resolved the issues you mention. Please review one more time. https://wakko.is-a-geek.com/~brett/rubygem-facade.spec https://wakko.is-a-geek.com/~brett/rubygem-facade-1.0.4-3.fc11.src.rpm
Well, I missed the following, however: - I guess %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}/ri should also be marked as doc. And the 3 lines: ----------------------------------------------------- %files %dir %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version} %doc %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}/rdoc %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}/ri ------------------------------------------------------ can be simplified as: ------------------------------------------------------ %files %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}/ ------------------------------------------------------
Ok. Simplified the doc dir. https://wakko.is-a-geek.com/~brett/rubygem-facade.spec https://wakko.is-a-geek.com/~brett/rubygem-facade-1.0.4-4.fc11.src.rpm
Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Get a Fedora Account". After you request for sponsorship a mail will be sent to sponsor members automatically (which is invisible for you) which notifies that you need a sponsor. After that, please also write on this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship and your FAS (Fedora Account System) name. Then I will sponsor you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 10/11, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me.
I have applied to the packagers group. FAS Account name: wakko666
Okay, now I am sponsoring you. Please follow "Join" wiki again.
Please add a cvs request template: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure to let us know what you want.
Once resetting fedora-cvs flag. Brett, please write the CVS request for new package following the above URL and set fedora-cvs flag again.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-facade Short Description: A module that helps implement the facade pattern Owners: wakko666 Branches: F-12 InitialCC: mtasaka
Well, "Branches F-12" means that you request for early branch? https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-August/msg01435.html Current stable branches are F-11 and F-10. As your srpm has ".fc11" suffix, I guess you want F-11 branch, not F-12.
Is F-12 not the right thing to request? I presume the %{?dist} macro will expand to whatever suffix is appropriate. F-11 or F-12 (or both) is fine by me.
I've already processed the CVS request as provided, although I assume that anyone who requests an F-12 branch at this point understands where their builds will go. If you really wanted your packages to be available on F-11, you will need to make a new CVS request for an F-11 branch. CVS done.
Closing.