[Bug 1177739] Review Request: rubygem-vte3 - Ruby binding of VTE

2015-01-05 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177739

Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2015-01-06 01:37:55



--- Comment #5 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org ---
Pushed into rawhide, push requested on F-21, closing.

Thank you for review and git procedure.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1177739] Review Request: rubygem-vte3 - Ruby binding of VTE

2015-01-01 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177739

Till Maas opensou...@till.name changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1177739] Review Request: rubygem-vte3 - Ruby binding of VTE

2015-01-01 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177739



--- Comment #4 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1177739] Review Request: rubygem-vte3 - Ruby binding of VTE

2014-12-31 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177739

František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 LGPL (v2.1 or later), Unknown or generated. 7 files have unknown
 license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[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.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[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. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
 independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
 from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
 Note: proper way would be to include license text in each gem by upstream.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
   

[Bug 1177739] Review Request: rubygem-vte3 - Ruby binding of VTE

2014-12-31 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177739



--- Comment #2 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org ---
Thank you!

1) Usually rubygem-glib2 dependency is the most important, so for now
   I write BR version dependency only for rubygem-glib2-devel.

2) Ah... well, %gem_install in /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.rubygems
   may have to fix, I will check this (there can be a problem
   when we want to change CONFIGURE_ARGS - currently it seems okay,
   however when we change ruby to 2.2 on F-22, perhaps it is better
   to modify /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.rubygems at this timing)

3) - ruby-gnome2 suite all is currently under LGPLv2+. I will change to
 better comments.
   - I will modify description
   - -c option for install command is actually not needed (does nothing),
 just my habit :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1177739] Review Request: rubygem-vte3 - Ruby binding of VTE

2014-12-31 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177739

Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: rubygem-vte3
Short Description: Ruby binding of VTE
Upstream URL: http://ruby-gnome2.sourceforge.jp/
Owners: mtasaka
Branches: f21
InitialCC:

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1177739] Review Request: rubygem-vte3 - Ruby binding of VTE

2014-12-30 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177739

František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||val...@civ.zcu.cz
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|val...@civ.zcu.cz
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review