Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-rainbow.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-rainbow-1.1.4-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Rainbow is an extension to the Ruby String class adding support for colorizing text on ANSI terminals. Fedora Account System Username: jstribny Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4786207
package is good, except for the %check that silently patch the tests. I think it would be better to find another way that doesn't change the code. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - code is patched silently in %check, better use export CLICOLOR_FORCE=1 in %check ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FESCO exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/886857-rubygem- rainbow/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. Ruby: [x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir}, platform independent under %{gem_dir}. [x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage [x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name} [x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel. [x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro. [x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch [x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(abi). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Ruby: [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache}, %{gem_spec}, %{gem_libdir} [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-rainbow-1.1.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm rubygem-rainbow-doc-1.1.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-rainbow-doc rubygem-rainbow 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-rainbow-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-rainbow rubygem-rainbow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(abi) ruby(rubygems) Provides -------- rubygem-rainbow-doc: rubygem-rainbow-doc rubygem-rainbow: rubygem(rainbow) rubygem-rainbow MD5-sum check ------------- http://rubygems.org/gems/rainbow-1.1.4.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2875e077a2de0dad4671b6a6fc2ef5055f5f2c80a4333135f3151a54823651e1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2875e077a2de0dad4671b6a6fc2ef5055f5f2c80a4333135f3151a54823651e1 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (Unknown) last change: Unknown Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 886857
(In reply to comment #1) > package is good, except for the %check that silently patch the tests. I > think it would be better to find another way that doesn't change the code. I would definitely go with: CLICOLOR_FORCE=1 ruby test/*_test.rb which does the same job, doesn't change the code and save one line ;)
Adjusted as suggested by Vit: Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-rainbow.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-rainbow-1.1.4-2.fc19.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4796344
Sound good to me, approved
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-rainbow Short Description: Ruby String class extension enabling coloring text on ANSI terminals Owners: jstribny Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Could this package be pushed ?
(In reply to comment #7) > Could this package be pushed ? The package is in Git and built in Rawhide as well. I guess we can close this issue now. [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=15153