Bug 697801 - Review Request: rubygem-recaptcha - Helpers for reCAPTCHA API
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-recaptcha - Helpers for reCAPTCHA API
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Parag AN(पराग)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-04-19 10:18 UTC by Akira TAGOH
Modified: 2013-08-30 08:55 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-04-26 03:14:10 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
panemade: fedora-review+
vondruch: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Akira TAGOH 2011-04-19 10:18:49 UTC
Spec URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-recaptcha/rubygem-recaptcha.spec
SRPM URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-recaptcha/rubygem-recaptcha-0.3.1-1.fc14.src.rpm
Description:
This plug-in adds helpers for the reCAPTCHA API.
In your views you can use the recaptcha_tags method
to embed the needed JavaScript, and you can validate
in your controllers with verify_recaptcha.

Beforehand you need to configure Recaptcha with your
custom private and public key. You may find detailed
examples below.
Exceptions will be raised if you call these methods
and the keys can’t be found.

Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2011-04-19 15:40:36 UTC
Suggestions:
1) Each Ruby package MUST indicate the Ruby ABI version it depends on. Add
following at top lines
   %global rubyabi 1.8
2) missing BR
BuildRequires: ruby(abi) = %{rubyabi}
3) For fedora we don't need buildroot,%clean section and cleaning of buildroot
in %install
4) I think following can be skipped from -doc subpackage as its already installed by main package
%doc %{geminstdir}/[A-Z]*

Comment 2 Parag AN(पराग) 2011-04-20 03:54:04 UTC
oops I just realized that its actually missing Requires and not BR: in above 2)

and as per ruby packaging guidelines, each package should BR: ruby

Comment 3 Vít Ondruch 2011-04-20 10:23:24 UTC
Could you please execute test suite during build?

Comment 4 Akira TAGOH 2011-04-20 11:31:37 UTC
Updated. no bumped version.

(In reply to comment #1)
> 4) I think following can be skipped from -doc subpackage as its already
> installed by main package
> %doc %{geminstdir}/[A-Z]*

just concerned that rpmlint complains no doc for -doc. guess it's not a big deal.

Comment 5 Akira TAGOH 2011-04-20 11:35:37 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Could you please execute test suite during build?

I'm not sure if unit test code in every gem packages is well maintained though, is it really worth doing with even adding rake and other deps to BR, which isn't necessary for real build?

Comment 6 Vít Ondruch 2011-04-20 11:42:50 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Could you please execute test suite during build?
> 
> I'm not sure if unit test code in every gem packages is well maintained though,
> is it really worth doing with even adding rake and other deps to BR, which
> isn't necessary for real build?

You don't have to use rake to execute test suite: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_talk:Ruby

And yes, it is worth of. For example Sinatra was recently broken after update, because new dependency was introduced. You cannot catch such change without testsuite or careful testing.

Comment 7 Vít Ondruch 2011-04-20 12:17:16 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> Updated. no bumped version.
> 
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > 4) I think following can be skipped from -doc subpackage as its already
> > installed by main package
> > %doc %{geminstdir}/[A-Z]*
> 
> just concerned that rpmlint complains no doc for -doc. guess it's not a big
> deal.

There is LICENSE file which should be IMO in both packages. Otherwise there are small discrepancy in opinions if files in -doc subpackage should or should not be marked as doc.

Comment 8 Parag AN(पराग) 2011-04-21 06:34:48 UTC
I think if license text files are added in main package then -doc don't need to include them again considering we have guideline -> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing


I see unit test is failing. Otherwise package looks ok.

+ Koji Build -> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3015355
+ upstream source verified as
51331aa7cf9fff5e75bf302aeb4ebb057087ed2b  ../SOURCES/recaptcha-0.3.1.gem
51331aa7cf9fff5e75bf302aeb4ebb057087ed2b  recaptcha-0.3.1.gem
+ rpmlint output is silent.

APPROVED.

Comment 9 Vít Ondruch 2011-04-21 13:32:56 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> I think if license text files are added in main package then -doc don't need to
> include them again considering we have guideline ->
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing

You are right, the -doc subpackage requires the base package, then the license doesn't need to be included in both.

Comment 10 Akira TAGOH 2011-04-25 07:00:25 UTC
Sure. will fix that though, even "rake test" fails. I'll disable it so far and revisit when upstream fixes it..

Comment 11 Akira TAGOH 2011-04-25 08:26:43 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-recaptcha
Short Description: Helpers for reCAPTCHA API
Owners: tagoh
Branches: f14 f15 el6
InitialCC:

Comment 12 Jason Tibbitts 2011-04-25 17:10:52 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 13 Akira TAGOH 2011-04-26 03:14:10 UTC
Thanks. package has been built.

Comment 14 Vít Ondruch 2013-08-30 08:42:42 UTC
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: rubygem-recaptcha
Unretire Branches: f19
Owners: vondruch

I accidentally clicked on retire button in pkgdb :/ Than you for your help.

Comment 15 Vít Ondruch 2013-08-30 08:55:44 UTC
Resolved, I am clearing the flag.


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