Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-capybara/rubygem-capybara.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-capybara/rubygem-capybara-1.0.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Capybara is an integration testing tool for rack based web applications. It simulates how a user would interact with a website.
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated [x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/adam/tmp/reviewhelper/727909/capybara-1.0.0.gem : MD5SUM this package : 6ee03d9facbb5c65692647f2828ff4ea MD5SUM upstream package : 6ee03d9facbb5c65692647f2828ff4ea [x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly. [-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr. [-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent. - apparently the doc-related warnings are expected [x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries. [x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format. [x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-] : MUST - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [!] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - the Github site claims the license is MIT [-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [ ] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict. [-] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules. [-] : MUST - Package contains no static executables. [x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [?] : MUST - Package installs properly. [?] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [?] : MUST - Package is not relocatable. [x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8. [-] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL. [x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. [-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make. [-] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [?] : SHOULD - If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?] : SHOULD - Package functions as described. [x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged. [x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?] : SHOULD - Man pages included for all executables. [-] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-] : SHOULD - Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] : SHOULD - Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass. [x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Issues: [!] - license divergence needs to be clarified [!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent. [!] - as with selenium-webdriver, there are divergences from the Ruby guidelines - could just be personal preference
> Issues: > [!] - license divergence needs to be clarified Arg, yes, I forgot to change that. I've fixed it now. > > [!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent. Yeah, that happens with all ruby packages, due to the way that rdoc builds documentation files. This can be ignored. > > [!] - as with selenium-webdriver, there are divergences from the Ruby > guidelines - could just be personal preference %prep not being empty is due to the Fedora guidelines being out of date; the unofficial way we have been doing pure ruby rubygems lately is to put everything into %prep and %install. If you think about it, that makes sense; doing an "rpmbuild -bp <spec>" will then get you a tree that you can look at, even if it is hidden beneath a directory tree. I've uploaded a new version of the Spec and SRPM here: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-capybara/rubygem-capybara.spec http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-capybara/rubygem-capybara-1.0.0-2.fc14.src.rpm Can you take a look and approve if it looks good to you? Thanks!
Yes, looks good. APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-capybara Short Description: Simplify the process of integration testing Rack applications Owners: clalance mmorsi Branches: f16 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).