[Bug 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755

Mamoru TASAKA  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-02-15 23:34:44



--- Comment #12 from Mamoru TASAKA  ---
Already pushed into repository, closing. Thank you for 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

[Bug 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755

Mamoru TASAKA  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #10 from Mamoru TASAKA  ---
Thank you!

-- 
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 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755



--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rubygem-racc

-- 
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 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755

greg.helli...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||greg.helli...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|greg.helli...@gmail.com



--- Comment #8 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
Taking for 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

[Bug 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755



--- Comment #9 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
$ rpmlint rubygem-racc.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint ./rubygem-racc-1.4.14-1.fc.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/rubygem-racc-1.4.14-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
 
rubygem-racc.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/racc-1.4.14/gem.build_complete
rubygem-racc.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/gems/gems/racc-1.4.14/COPYING
rubygem-racc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary racc2y
rubygem-racc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary racc
rubygem-racc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary y2racc
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/rubygem-racc-debuginfo-1.4.14-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/rubygem-racc-doc-1.4.14-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ md5sum racc-1.4.14.gem 
ec1c3738429842b7ff1f2f4f52b7e6cc  racc-1.4.14.gem

$ wget -q -O - https://rubygems.org/gems/racc-1.4.14.gem | md5sum
ec1c3738429842b7ff1f2f4f52b7e6cc  -

[+] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. 
[+] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[+] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[+] 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 %license.
[+] The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is
used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
[+] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
[+] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[+] 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.
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[+] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example.
[+] Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+] 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).
[+] 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.
[+] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[+] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are 

[Bug 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755

greg.helli...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  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

[Bug 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755

Mamoru TASAKA  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW



-- 
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 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755

Mamoru TASAKA  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|steve.tray...@cern.ch   |nob...@fedoraproject.org



--- Comment #7 from Mamoru TASAKA  ---
Revoking assignee due to lack of response for a month.

-- 
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 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755

Mamoru TASAKA  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |
   |needinfo?(steve.traylen@cer |
   |n.ch)   |



-- 
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 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755



--- Comment #6 from Mamoru TASAKA  ---
Ping again?

-- 
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 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755



--- Comment #5 from Mamoru TASAKA  ---
Ping again?

-- 
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 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755

Mamoru TASAKA  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(steve.traylen@cer
   ||n.ch)



--- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA  ---
ping?

-- 
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 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755



--- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA  ---
Meanwhile, 1.4.14 is released.

https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-racc.spec
https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-racc-1.4.14-1.fc.src.rpm
* Sun Dec  6 2015 Mamoru TASAKA  - 1.4.14-1
- 1.4.14

-- 
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 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755



--- Comment #2 from Mamoru TASAKA  ---
Hello. First, thank you for comments!

(In reply to Steve Traylen from comment #1)
> Just curios, the %{nil} in the for loop is just to make future diffs clean
> or something else?

Yes (to make future diffs clean)

> The LICENSE is seems confused
> 
> https://github.com/tenderlove/racc/blob/master/Rakefile#L20
> is MIT.
  Rakefile is just as "Makefile" and usually we don't take this
  into account with regard to license tag.

> https://github.com/tenderlove/racc/blob/master/README.rdoc
> is GPL v2
  This is LGPLv2 (GNU "Lesser")
> 
> and finally
> https://github.com/tenderlove/racc/blob/master/COPYING
> is GPL v2+
  This is also LGPLv2 (GNU "Lesser")
> 
> The .spec file has
>  LGPLv2 and (Ruby or GPLv2)
So license file and README.rdoc says this is LGPLv2, however
some files are under old ruby license (which is under "Ruby"
and GPLv2, e.g. ext/racc/cparse.c), so this should be
LGPLv2 and (GPLv2 or Ruby)

-- 
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 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755



--- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen  ---
Just curios, the %{nil} in the for loop is just to make future diffs clean
or something else?

The LICENSE is seems confused

https://github.com/tenderlove/racc/blob/master/Rakefile#L20

is MIT.


https://github.com/tenderlove/racc/blob/master/README.rdoc
is GPL v2

and finally
https://github.com/tenderlove/racc/blob/master/COPYING
is GPL v2+

The .spec file has

 LGPLv2 and (Ruby or GPLv2)

Other than that it's all looking very simple.

-- 
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 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755

Steve Traylen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|steve.tray...@cern.ch
  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

[Bug 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755

Mamoru TASAKA  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |rubygem-racc.spec - LALR(1) |rubygem-racc - LALR(1)
   |parser generator|parser generator



-- 
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