Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1224028
Summary: | Review Request: rubygem-rmail-sup - A lightweight mail library written in ruby | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Praveen Kumar <kumarpraveen.nitdgp> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Parag AN(पराग) <panemade> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | panemade:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | rubygem-rmail-sup-1.0.1-2.fc22 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-06-18 13:22:01 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1024650 |
Description
Praveen Kumar
2015-05-22 03:51:14 UTC
Review: + mock build is successful for F23 x86_64 + rpmlint on all the generated rpms gave output rubygem-rmail-sup.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-rmail-sup-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as sha256sum upstream tarball: 2f61911c2aa30284c7e2ed3d7bb594a7cb8d20a67774a570a7c0141d40985cf7 tarball in srpm: 2f61911c2aa30284c7e2ed3d7bb594a7cb8d20a67774a570a7c0141d40985cf7 - License in specfile is "GPLv2+" which is invalid. Just check the source files and license is "BSD" Other suggestions to improve packaging: 1) Group tag is needed for EPEL5 only if package is not supposed to be build on EPEL5 then remove group tag its optional now. 2) defattr(-,root,root,-) is optional now. 3) The Guidelines says "The package must BuildRequires: rubygems-devel to pull in the macros needed to build." Add BR: rubygems-devel 4)In %install section as per guildeines I see you missed '/' mv .%{gem_dir}/* %{buildroot}%{gem_dir} should be mv ./%{gem_dir}/* %{buildroot}%{gem_dir} 5) You have written in %install following which I don't see being packaged or no files are getting installed in bindir, good to remove this line mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_bindir} 6) I see you only and only need following BR: so remove other BR: BuildRequires: rubygems-devel 7) -docs package is installing font files which should be installed separately. Generally we should avoid bundling font files. 8) you can add following to main package %doc NOTES README NEWS 9) Also check if you can run testsuite in %check as I see test folder in source. Note we have different ruby packaging guidelines for F19/20, EPEL6/7 and then different guidelines for F21+ releases. According to newer guidelines you should follow a) There should not be any rubygem Requires nor Provides listed, since those are autogenerated. b) There should not be Requires: ruby(release), unless you want to explicitly specify Ruby version compatibility. Automatically generated dependency on RubyGems (Requires: ruby(rubygems)) is enough. (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #1) > Review: > > + mock build is successful for F23 x86_64 > > + rpmlint on all the generated rpms gave output > rubygem-rmail-sup.noarch: W: no-documentation > rubygem-rmail-sup-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > > + Source verified with upstream as sha256sum > upstream tarball: > 2f61911c2aa30284c7e2ed3d7bb594a7cb8d20a67774a570a7c0141d40985cf7 > tarball in srpm: > 2f61911c2aa30284c7e2ed3d7bb594a7cb8d20a67774a570a7c0141d40985cf7 > > - License in specfile is "GPLv2+" which is invalid. Just check the source > files and license is "BSD" Done > > Other suggestions to improve packaging: > 1) Group tag is needed for EPEL5 only if package is not supposed to be build > on EPEL5 then remove group tag its optional now. Removed Group tag. > > 2) defattr(-,root,root,-) is optional now. Removed. > > 3) The Guidelines says "The package must BuildRequires: rubygems-devel to > pull in the macros needed to build." > Add BR: rubygems-devel This was there before also. > > 4)In %install section as per guildeines I see you missed '/' > mv .%{gem_dir}/* %{buildroot}%{gem_dir} > should be > mv ./%{gem_dir}/* %{buildroot}%{gem_dir} As per %{gem_dir} macro expansion it auto add '/' after '.' $ rpm --eval %{gem_dir} /usr/share/gems > > 5) You have written in %install following which I don't see being packaged > or no files are getting installed in bindir, good to remove this line > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_bindir} Removed. > > 6) I see you only and only need following BR: so remove other BR: > BuildRequires: rubygems-devel Removed other BRs. > > 7) -docs package is installing font files which should be installed > separately. Generally we should avoid bundling font files. > > 8) you can add following to main package > %doc NOTES README NEWS Added. > > 9) Also check if you can run testsuite in %check as I see test folder in > source. Yes but I can't use Rake for run test case as per guideline [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#Running_test_suites > > > Note we have different ruby packaging guidelines for F19/20, EPEL6/7 and > then different guidelines for F21+ releases. > > According to newer guidelines you should follow > a) There should not be any rubygem Requires nor Provides listed, since those > are autogenerated. Done > > b) There should not be Requires: ruby(release), unless you want to > explicitly specify Ruby version compatibility. Automatically generated > dependency on RubyGems (Requires: ruby(rubygems)) is enough. Spec URL: https://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-rmail-sup.spec SRPM URL: https://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-rmail-sup-1.0.1-2.fc21.src.rpm Issues: 1) We don't need to specify explicitly provides: now. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#Filtering_Requires_and_Provides Rest looks fine to me. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-rmail-sup Short Description: A lightweight mail library written in ruby Upstream URL: http://sup.rubyforge.org/ Owners: kumarpraveen Branches: f20 f21 f22 InitialCC: shreyankg f20 is no longer accepting new packages, and InitialCC needs a FAS account name, not an email address. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-rmail-sup Short Description: A lightweight mail library written in ruby Upstream URL: http://sup.rubyforge.org/ Owners: kumarpraveen Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC: shreyankg Git done (by process-git-requests). rubygem-rmail-sup-1.0.1-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rmail-sup-1.0.1-2.fc22 rubygem-rmail-sup-1.0.1-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rmail-sup-1.0.1-2.fc21 rubygem-rmail-sup-1.0.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. rubygem-rmail-sup-1.0.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. rubygem-rmail-sup-1.0.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. |