[Bug 688315] Review Request: rubygem-little-plugger - gem based plugin management

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688315

--- Comment #6 from Chris Lalancette <clalance@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-07 10:49:21 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> [  OK  ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
> [  OK  ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming 
>          Guidelines
> [  OK  ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
> [  ??  ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
> 
> Possible fail, use of %define, guidelines say use of %global is preferred. (Did
> gem2rpm do this?) Ruby packaging guidelines seem to be not applicable to gems;
> is that correct?

Right, I didn't know about that guideline.  I'll update it.  And yes, gem2rpm
did do the %define.  I think we really need to update gem2rpm to conform to
some of these new requirements, but -ENOTIME.

> 
> [  OK  ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
>          and meet the Licensing Guidelines
> [ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the 
>          actual license
> 
> Spec says GPLV2+ or Ruby. README.rdoc in the gem->data.tar.gz says MIT. 

Yep, good catch.  Fixed.

> 
> N.B. file timestamps in the gem (tar file) and the embedded data.tar.gz are
> 1969-12-31. Tar on my f14 box is silent, tar on my f15 box whines.

Hm, odd.  On my system, both the SRPM and the gem file both have valid
timestamps.  I wonder what the deal there is.

> 
> [  OK  ] 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 must be included in %doc
> [  OK  ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
> [  OK  ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
> [  OK  ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream 
>          source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for 
>          this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, 
>          please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
> [  OK  ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary 
>          rpms on at least one primary architecture
> [  N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on 
>          an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the 
>          spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST 
>          have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package 
>          does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST 
>          be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
> [  OK  ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except 
>          for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging 
>          Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply 
>          common sense.
> [  OK  ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by 
>          using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly 
>          forbidden
> [  N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared 
>          library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's 
>          default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
> [  N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must 
>          state this fact in the request for review, along with the 
>          rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without 
>          this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
> [  OK  ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does 
>          not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package 
>          which does create that directory.
> [  OK  ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files 
>          listing.
> [ FAIL ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
> 
> use %{_mkdir}, %{_cp}, and %{_rm} instead of mkdir, cp, and rm respectively.
> (Is this another gem2rpm bug?)

Hm.  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros says:

"Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there is a
need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. For
example, rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}, but %{__python} is
acceptable."

I left the rm, mkdir, and cp as-is based on that.

> 
> [  OK  ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
> [  OK  ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The 
>          definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but 
>          is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or 
>          quantity).
> [  OK  ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the 
>          runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the 
>          program must run properly if it is not present.
> [  N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
> [  N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
> [  N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: 
>          pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
> [  N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. 
>          libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) 
>          must go in a -devel package.
> [  N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the 
>          base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
>          %{version}-%{release}
> [  N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must 
>          be removed in the spec if they are built.
> [  N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
>          %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with 
>          desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your 
>          packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put 
>          a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
> [  OK  ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by 
>          other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to 
>          be installed should own the files or directories that other packages 
>          may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora 
>          should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories 
>          owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a 
>          good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, 
>          then please present that at package review time.
> [  OK  ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
>          %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
> [  OK  ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
> [  ?   ] SHOULD query upstream to include it.
> [  N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
>         should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if
>         available.
> [  OK  ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> 
> x86-64 and i386 tested.
> 
> [ SKIP ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
>         supported architectures.
> [ SKIP ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
>         described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
>         example.
> [  N/A ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
>         vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
> [  N/A ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
>         package using a fully versioned dependency.
> [  N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their
>         usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be
>         placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg
>         itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or
>         gdb.
> [  N/A ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
>         /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which
>         provides the file instead of the file itself.
> [      ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If
>         it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[34]

I think the rest is fine.  I've uploaded new versions of the package to the
same place as the initial comment.  Can you take a look?  Once you are
satisfied, the next step would be to change the fedora-review flag to +, but it
seems like you are having trouble doing that.  I would recommend emailing the
bugzilla maintainers (bugzilla-owner@xxxxxxxxxx, I think) to see what the deal
is.

Thanks for the review,
Chris Lalancette

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]