[Bug 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Fixed In Version||rubygem-powerpack-0.1.1-4.f
   ||c27
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2020-04-27 14:29:47




-- 
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 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703

Bugzilla account termination  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|rjo...@redhat.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org



-- 
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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703



--- Comment #8 from Ilya Gradina  ---
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #7)
> Ping ... What is the status here, please? The package was approved already
> ...

excuse me, it is fixed.

-- 
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 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||vondr...@redhat.com



--- Comment #7 from Vít Ondruch  ---
Ping ... What is the status here, please? The package was approved already ...

-- 
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 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703



--- Comment #6 from Ilya Gradina  ---
update source(fix error in tests).
spec:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-powerpack.spec
srpm:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-powerpack-0.1.1-3.fc27.src.rpm

koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20835143

-- 
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 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703



--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rubygem-powerpack

-- 
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 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703



--- Comment #4 from Ilya Gradina  ---
(In reply to Roman Joost from comment #3)
> Approved. Good work!

thx!)

-- 
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 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703

Roman Joost  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Roman Joost  ---
Approved. Good work!

-- 
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 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703



--- Comment #2 from Roman Joost  ---
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 63 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/rjoost/tmp/1268703-rubygem-powerpack/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
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
 powerpack-doc
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: 

[Bug 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703

Roman Joost  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||rjo...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.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

[Bug 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703



--- Comment #1 from Ilya Gradina  ---
New SPEC:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-powerpack.spec
New SRPM:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-powerpack-0.1.1-2.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703

Ilya Gradina  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1268758




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268758
[Bug 1268758] Review Request: rubygem-rubocop - Automatic Ruby code style
checking tool
-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org