Bug 960047 - Review Request: rubygem-annotate - Annotates Rails Models, routes, fixtures etc based on the database schema
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-annotate - Annotates Rails Models, routes, fixtures e...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Vít Ondruch
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-05-06 13:38 UTC by Anuj More
Modified: 2016-10-11 10:58 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-10-11 10:58:32 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Anuj More 2013-05-06 13:38:22 UTC
Spec URL: http://anujmore.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-annotate/rubygem-annotate.spec
SRPM URL: http://anujmore.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-annotate/rubygem-annotate-2.5.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: Annotates Rails/ActiveRecord Models, routes, fixtures, and others based on the database schema.
Fedora Account System Username: anujmore

Comment 1 Anuj More 2013-05-06 14:00:10 UTC
Additionally, mock builds: 

http://anujmore.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-annotate/mock-annotate-build.log
http://anujmore.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-annotate/mock-annotate-screen.txt

rpmlint gives this:

rubygem-annotate.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-annotate.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary annotate
rubygem-annotate.src:47: W: macro-in-comment %gem_dir
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

which I assume are safe to ignore.

Comment 2 Vít Ondruch 2013-05-06 15:07:36 UTC
I'll take this one for a review.

Comment 3 Vít Ondruch 2013-05-06 16:16:13 UTC
* Execute test suite
  - It seems that there is available test suite in upstream repository. Could
    you please execute it? You can find small how-to here [1]

* License
  - There is no separate LICENSE file. Could you please ask upstream to include
    one [2]?
  - Since there is no separate LICENSE file, I would suggest to move the
    README.rdoc, which contains some licensing information, into the main
    package.
  - Could you please ask upstream about clarification of their license? The
    "Released under the same license as Ruby" is a bit vague, since Ruby itself
    changed license from "Ruby or GPL+" (used until Ruby 1.9.2) to "Ruby or
    BSD" (for Ruby 1.9.3 and newer).
  - Please note that the license should contain "or" instead of "and" in any
    case.

* Raketasks are probably not needed
  - Could you please ensure, that the migrate.rake file is useful for the gem?
    I would say, that it has its purpose, when the gem would be used as Rails
    plugin, but that is not our case.




[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Test_suites_not_included_in_the_package
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

Comment 4 Vít Ondruch 2015-11-04 13:37:57 UTC
Ping? This review seems to be staled ...


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