[Bug 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-07-12 00:51:39 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-fce38c14d9 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-fce38c14d9 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-fce38c14d9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-fce38c14d9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-fce38c14d9 -- 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puppet-resource_api -- 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Looks fine. fedora-review raised an issue with directory ownership but that
seems to be a tooling bug, the resulting RPMs depend on ruby(rubygems) which
owns those directories. APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1811777-rubygem-puppet-
resource_api/licensecheck.txt
[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
=> seems like a false positive, can't repro with the produced RPM.
These directories are owned by rubygems, your binary RPM does pull in
ruby(rubygems) and rpmlint on it is fine.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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: 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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported
[Bug 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 Breno changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(brand...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #7 from Breno --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/el8-playground/epel-8-x86_64/01504101-rubygem-puppet-resource_api/rubygem-puppet-resource_api.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/el8-playground/epel-8-x86_64/01504101-rubygem-puppet-resource_api/rubygem-puppet-resource_api-1.8.13-1.el8.src.rpm There you go, thanks Michel. -- 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(brand...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Taking this review -- could you update the spec and SRPM links? They no longer work so fedora-review can't process this. -- 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mic...@michel-slm.name Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 --- Comment #5 from Breno --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stable-el8-fedora/epel-8-x86_64/01386070-rubygem-puppet-resource_api/rubygem-puppet-resource_api.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stable-el8-fedora/epel-8-x86_64/01386070-rubygem-puppet-resource_api/rubygem-puppet-resource_api-1.8.13-1.el8.src.rpm Description: A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb Hi Terje Røsten, Updated the changelogs :) Added puppet as a dependency. Also updated license, changelogs, removed files that were included but shouldn't. Bumped up the version. I am also sharing my temporary repository so you can follow the changes closer[1]. 1 https://github.com/skywalkerz0r/rubygem-puppet-resource_api -- 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 --- Comment #4 from Breno --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stable-el8-fedora/epel-8-x86_64/01373679-rubygem-puppet-resource_api/rubygem-puppet-resource_api.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stable-el8-fedora/epel-8-x86_64/01373679-rubygem-puppet-resource_api/rubygem-puppet-resource_api-1.8.13-1.el8.src.rpm Description: This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb Hi Terje Røsten, Thanks once again. This package requires puppet, and puppet (>6) also requires this package. It should be fine now. The version was bumped and the issue you found, fixed. 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 Terje Røsten changed: What|Removed |Added CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no --- Comment #3 from Terje Røsten --- 1.8.13 is on rubygems.org now. Is the requires correct? In /usr/share/gems/gems/puppet-resource_api-1.8.12/lib/puppet/resource_api.rb there is: require 'puppet/type' what package provides this? -- 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 --- Comment #2 from Breno --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet-6-in-epel8-testing/epel-8-x86_64/01339452-rubygem-puppet-resource_api/rubygem-puppet-resource_api.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet-6-in-epel8-testing/epel-8-x86_64/01339452-rubygem-puppet-resource_api/rubygem-puppet-resource_api-1.8.12-1.el8.src.rpm Description: This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb Update - just didn't bump up the version, because I can't see it in rubygems.org. 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Valid license shorthand for Apache-2.0 is ASL 2.0
License: ASL 2.0
- Bump to 1.8.13
- Remove these in %install, %exclude is to be used only for file exclusion
between multiple packages:
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.gitignore
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.rubocop.yml
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.travis.yml
- Mark as %doc:
%doc %{gem_instdir}/CODEOWNERS
%license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE
%doc %{gem_instdir}/NOTICE
- Are these really needed?
%{gem_instdir}/appveyor.yml
%{gem_instdir}/codecov.yml
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 47 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-puppet-resource_api/review-rubygem-
puppet-resource_api/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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: 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]: 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]: 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 contains font files
[-]: 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]:
