Bug 961364 - Review Request: rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders - This gem contains deprecated finder APIs extracted from Active Record
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders - This gem contains d...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Achilleas Pipinellis
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2013-05-09 13:28 UTC by Josef Stribny
Modified: 2016-01-04 05:51 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-08-08 08:43:06 UTC
Type: ---
axilleas: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Josef Stribny 2013-05-09 13:28:32 UTC
Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders.spec
SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders-1.0.2-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: Deprecated finder APIs extracted from Active Record.
Fedora Account System Username: jstribny

This SRPM won't build because it needs Rails 4 which is not yet in Fedora. Filling already to keep track.

Comment 1 Josef Stribny 2013-07-31 12:49:27 UTC
I added a bootstrap condition for tests as we need to build this RubyGem before Rails 4.0 because ActiveRecord depends on this (I guess this will be dropped in 4.1).

SPEC: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders.spec
SRPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3599/5683599/rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders-1.0.2-2.fc20.src.rpm
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5683597

Comment 2 Achilleas Pipinellis 2013-08-01 05:30:11 UTC
Hi Josef, 


1) There is a 1.0.3 version, please update.
2) Remove shebang in Rakefile.

Thanks :)

Comment 4 Josef Stribny 2013-08-01 10:42:09 UTC
I was playing with the package today as I was upgrading ActiveRecord and it seems that the easiest way is to bootstrap also the requires, because its a circular dependency, and it's better to run all tests on ActiveRecord and make a rebuild of this package afterwards, rather then bootstrapping AR by removing this gem as a dep. This way I got AR builds just fine locally. And afterwards I could build rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders as well with no issues.

I also fixed AR dep vs Rails dep (AR is enough).


SRPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8134/5688134/rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders-1.0.3-2.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 5 Achilleas Pipinellis 2013-08-02 08:59:03 UTC
Cool, that makes sense, package APPROVED.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC 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.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
[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". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/axil/review/review-rubygem-activerecord-
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
     Note: Test run failed
[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]: 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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[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.

[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

===== SHOULD items =====

[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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 (see attachments).
[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
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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
[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.

[x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
     Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %{gem_spec}, %{gem_libdir},
     %doc %{gem_docdir}, %exclude %{gem_cache}
[!]: Test suite of the library should be run.
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.

===== EXTRA items =====

[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders-1.0.3-2.fc19.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders-doc
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
https://rubygems.org/gems/activerecord-deprecated_finders-1.0.3.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 97ea365c348857818894bc5d8f644efa04f7543009419da5cef442ee053c4ffc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 97ea365c348857818894bc5d8f644efa04f7543009419da5cef442ee053c4ffc

Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders

Comment 6 Josef Stribny 2013-08-02 09:20:16 UTC
Thank you for the review.

New Package SCM Request
Package Name:  rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders
Short Description: This gem contains deprecated finder APIs extracted from Active Record
Owners: jstribny

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-08-02 11:57:50 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

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