Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742189
--- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi <mmorsi(a)redhat.com> 2011-10-03 07:20:56 EDT ---
New Spec / SPRM:
Spec URL:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-webmock.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc15.src.rpm
rubygem-webmock.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/webmock-1.7.6/Rakefile /usr/bin/env
From rpmlint source ... '''An included file marked as %doc creates a
possible
additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be
caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the
package's documentation.'''
Fixed, unmarked Rakefile as doc. Also changed /usr/bin/env rake to
/usr/bin/rake
rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/RequestSignature/eql%3f-i.yaml
%3f
<snip>
From rpmlint source ... '''This package contains a file whose path contains
something that looks like an unexpanded macro; this is often the sign of a
misspelling. Please check your specfile.'''
These can be ignored, they occur in any rubygem that ships ri documentation
> [ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must
match the
> actual license
The upstream LICENSE file seems to indicate MIT, does this need to be updated?
Fixed
Note, there are too many files listed as %doc. For example, the
Rakefile
probably shouldn't be a %doc. Maybe the same with other source code?
%exclude %{geminstdir}/Rakefile
Unmarked Rakefile as doc, the others are appropriately marked as doc (include
tests and such)
> [ FAIL ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Executables should
> be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
> must include a %defattr(...) line.
This is no longer needed
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Permissions
> [ FAIL ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST
run rm -rf
> %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Fixed, see
http://fpaste.org/GNSM/
This is no longer needed / should not be present
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
> [ WARN ] - The Ruby library files in a pure Ruby package must be
placed into Config::CONFIG["sitelibdir"] . The specfile must get that path using
%{!?ruby_sitelib: %global ruby_sitelib %(ruby -rrbconfig -e 'puts
Config::CONFIG["sitelibdir"] ')}
The specfile is using a different method for locating /usr/lib/ruby/*. Should
it be using %{ruby_sitelib} instead? Or does this not apply since this is
providing a rubygem?
Yes according to the Fedora gem packaging guidelines, we define gemdir and
geminstdir correctly
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Gems
> [ WARN ] - The %prep and %build sections of the specfile should
be empty.
%build is empty, %prep is not ... I've adjusted per the ruby guidelines
slightly. However this is a *should* requirement, not a *must*.
I would prefer to leave it as it is. The reason being if we ever have to patch
the gem, the gem install needs to occur in the %prep section before we can run
the %patch commands there as well.
> [ FAIL ] - The install should be performed with the command
'gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gemdir} --force %{SOURCE0}'
This command is currently used in the %prep. I've adjusted slighty to
accommodate the *should* requirement. Feel free to use if desired.
http://fpaste.org/GNSM/
Again would prefer to leave as is unless this is a major blocker.
Thank you greatly for the review!
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.