needinfo canceled: [Bug 1384984] Review Request: rubygem-strptime - Fast strptime engine

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review

Package Review  has canceled Package
Review 's request for Andrei Bardin
's needinfo:
Bug 1384984: Review Request: rubygem-strptime - Fast strptime engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384984



--- Comment #7 from Package Review  ---
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1384984] Review Request: rubygem-strptime - Fast strptime engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384984



--- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Rich Megginson from comment #4)
> (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Rich Megginson from comment #2)
> > > I would say the biggest problems are the spec file name;
> > 
> > This one should be ok:
> > 
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Naming_Guidelines
> 
> How so?  The spec file should be rubygem-%{gem_name}.spec not
> rubygem-%{gem_name}-%{version}.spec

You are right of course. Sorry, my bad. I read just the first part of the
message "Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec." and got confused ...

-- 
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

[Bug 1384984] Review Request: rubygem-strptime - Fast strptime engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384984



--- Comment #4 from Rich Megginson  ---
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #3)
> (In reply to Rich Megginson from comment #2)
> > I would say the biggest problems are the spec file name;
> 
> This one should be ok:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Naming_Guidelines

How so?  The spec file should be rubygem-%{gem_name}.spec not
rubygem-%{gem_name}-%{version}.spec

> 
> > -doc package bundles fonts generated by rdoc;
> 
> This is long standing issue common to all rubygem- packages (bug 1224715).

-- 
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

[Bug 1384984] Review Request: rubygem-strptime - Fast strptime engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384984

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||vondr...@redhat.com



--- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Rich Megginson from comment #2)
> I would say the biggest problems are the spec file name;

This one should be ok:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Naming_Guidelines

> -doc package bundles fonts generated by rdoc;

This is long standing issue common to all rubygem- packages (bug 1224715).

-- 
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

[Bug 1384984] Review Request: rubygem-strptime - Fast strptime engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384984



--- Comment #2 from Rich Megginson  ---
I haven't done a proper package review in ages, and never a ruby package, but
here's to get the process started:

Below is the fedora-review output.  I would say the biggest problems are the
spec file name; the license should be just "BSD" (according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines);
there is no test in the %check section (perhaps add rspec spec); -doc package
bundles fonts generated by rdoc; and a few problems in the rpmlint section.



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
  Note: rubygem-strptime-0.1.8.spec should be rubygem-strptime.spec
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name

= MUST items =
[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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[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]: 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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
 strptime-doc , rubygem-strptime-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: 

[Bug 1384984] Review Request: rubygem-strptime - Fast strptime engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384984

Sandro Bonazzola  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1426110



-- 
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

[Bug 1384984] Review Request: rubygem-strptime - Fast strptime engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384984

Eduardo Mayorga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com



--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Mayorga  ---
SRPM URL returns 404 not found.

-- 
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