[Bug 1794229] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-fire - More resilient test doubles for RSpec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794229 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-02-22 02:35:01 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1794229] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-fire - More resilient test doubles for RSpec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794229 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-c798c7399f -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1794229] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-fire - More resilient test doubles for RSpec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794229 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-c798c7399f has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-c798c7399f -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1794229] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-fire - More resilient test doubles for RSpec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794229 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-rspec-fire -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1794229] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-fire - More resilient test doubles for RSpec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794229 Alejandro Alvarez changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Alejandro Alvarez --- Looks good to me! -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1794229] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-fire - More resilient test doubles for RSpec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794229 --- Comment #5 from Breno --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/skywalkerz0r/rubygem-rspec-fire/epel8/rubygem-rspec-fire.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet-6-on-EPEL-8-with-deps/epel-8-x86_64/01223578-rubygem-rspec-fire/rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.src.rpm Hi Alejandro, Thanks again :) I updated the URLs above and also ran the fedora-review myself (I should have done that in the first place, heh :) - B -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1794229] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-fire - More resilient test doubles for RSpec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794229
Alejandro Alvarez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Alejandro Alvarez ---
Hello again,
Here is the review. There are three issues:
* You must require rubygems on your doc package, specially because it is the
owner of /usr/share/gems/ and /usr/share/gems/doc.
I have checked other rubygem doc packages and they do depend on rubygems, so
better add it.
* You can get rid of your Requires. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/#_rubygems
This is optional
* There are no tests, but AFAIK upstream has none, so little to do here.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- gems should require rubygems package
Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-rspec-fire-doc
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Ruby/#RubyGems
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= MUST items =
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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc
[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 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package
[Bug 1794229] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-fire - More resilient test doubles for RSpec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794229 --- Comment #3 from Breno --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/skywalkerz0r/rubygem-rspec-fire/epel8/rubygem-rspec-fire.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/general-testing/epel-8-x86_64/01221429-rubygem-rspec-fire/rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.src.rpm Hi Alejandro, Thanks for your feedback. I've just corrected the spec file and according to my mock tests, it's all good: $ rpmlint rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. I updated the URL above (using the raw spec file as you told me to :) Thanks. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1794229] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-fire - More resilient test doubles for RSpec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794229 Alejandro Alvarez changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|a.alvarezayl...@gmail.com 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1794229] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-fire - More resilient test doubles for RSpec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794229 Alejandro Alvarez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.alvarezayl...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #2 from Alejandro Alvarez --- Hi, It is better if you point to the raw spec file, not the gihub page, otherwise fedora-review can not process it (I have done this in the past too!) I have checked the spec file from the source rpm and the one you give and the changelogs are different: < * Wed Dec 18 2019 Breno Brand Fernandes - 3.3.2-14 --- > * Wed Dec 18 2019 Breno Brand Fernandes - 1.3.0-1 I guess a C error from some other rpm? Can you provide another source rpm built with the right spec? rpmlint: rubygem-rspec-fire.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C More resilient test doubles for RSpec. rubygem-rspec-fire.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.3.2-14 ['1.3.0-1.el8', '1.3.0-1'] rubygem-rspec-fire.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C More resilient test doubles for RSpec. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Note the "incoherent-version-in-changelog" fedora-review complains about "[!]: Test suite of the library should be run.", but from what I can see this package does not seem to have tests. You should drop the dependency on ruby: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/ * There SHOULD NOT be Requires: ruby(release), unless you want to explicitly specify Ruby version compatibility. The automatically generated dependency on RubyGems (Requires: ruby(rubygems)) is enough. Similarly * There SHOULD NOT be any rubygem Requires nor Provides listed, since those are autogenerated. As it is now, the resulting rpms do not seem to be installable: Error: Problem 1: conflicting requests - nothing provides (rubygem(rspec) < 4 with rubygem(rspec) >= 2.11) needed by rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch - nothing provides rubygem-rspec >= 2.11 needed by rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch - nothing provides rubygem-rspec < 4 needed by rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch Problem 2: package rubygem-rspec-fire-doc-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch requires rubygem-rspec-fire = 1.3.0-1.el8, but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - nothing provides (rubygem(rspec) < 4 with rubygem(rspec) >= 2.11) needed by rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch - nothing provides rubygem-rspec >= 2.11 needed by rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch - nothing provides rubygem-rspec < 4 needed by rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1794229] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-fire - More resilient test doubles for RSpec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794229 --- Comment #1 from Breno --- I noted some mistakes, I've just updated both Spec and SRPM. Please let me know if there's anything else I should fix. Spec URL: https://github.com/skywalkerz0r/rubygem-rspec-fire/blob/epel8/rubygem-rspec-fire.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/brandfbb/puppet-6-on-EPEL-8-with-deps/epel-8-x86_64/01213467-rubygem-rspec-fire/rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.src.rpm Description: This package is a requirement in order to have puppet 6 in EPEL 8. The build was tested on copr[1]. I am in the packager group, sponsored by nirik and my mentor is smooge. 1 - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/brandfbb/puppet-6-on-EPEL-8-with-deps/package/rubygem-rspec-fire/ Thanks. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
