Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-selenium-webdriver - The next generation developer focused tool for automated testing of webapps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727899
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-selenium-webdriver - The next generation developer focused tool for automated testing of webapps Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: clalance@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-selenium-webdriver/rubygem-seleniu... SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-selenium-webdriver/rubygem-seleniu...
Description: WebDriver is a tool for writing automated tests of websites. It aims to mimic the behavior of a real user, and as such interacts with the HTML of the application.
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=727899
Chris Lalancette clalance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |727879, 727887
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=727899
Chris Lalancette clalance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |727909
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=727899
Bug 727899 depends on bug 727879, which changed state.
Bug 727879 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rubyzip - A ruby module for reading and writing zip files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727879
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=727899
Adam Huffman bloch@verdurin.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bloch@verdurin.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |bloch@verdurin.com
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=727899
Adam Huffman bloch@verdurin.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Adam Huffman bloch@verdurin.com 2011-08-03 18:45:56 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/adam/tmp/reviewhelper/727909/capybara-1.0.0.gem : MD5SUM this package : 6ee03d9facbb5c65692647f2828ff4ea MD5SUM upstream package : 6ee03d9facbb5c65692647f2828ff4ea
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly. [-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr. [-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent. - apparently the doc warnings are expected
[x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries. [x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format. [x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-] : MUST - 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 %doc. [x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict. [x] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules. [x] : MUST - Package contains no static executables. [x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [?] : MUST - Package installs properly. [?] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [?] : MUST - Package is not relocatable. [x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8. [-] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL. [x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. [-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make. [-] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [?] : SHOULD - 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] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?] : SHOULD - Package functions as described. [x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged. [x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?] : SHOULD - Man pages included for all executables. [-] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-] : SHOULD - Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [?] : SHOULD - Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass. [x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Issues: [!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent. - as noted above, this doesn't seem to be regarded as a problem
- Overall, it looks okay to me but there seem to be some discrepancies with the Ruby-specific guidelines at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby
e.g. it doesn't own %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/ and %prep isn't empty
- this may just be a matter of individual style
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=727899
--- Comment #2 from Adam Huffman bloch@verdurin.com 2011-08-03 19:17:39 EDT --- Oops - pasted in the wrong section. The rest is correct:
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/adam/tmp/reviewhelper/727899/selenium-webdriver-2.3.2.gem : MD5SUM this package : 1177ead16da294a04401aa5923b4cfa0 MD5SUM upstream package : 1177ead16da294a04401aa5923b4cfa0
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=727899
--- Comment #3 from Chris Lalancette clalance@redhat.com 2011-08-04 10:01:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
Issues: [!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
- as noted above, this doesn't seem to be regarded as a problem
Yeah, that happens with all ruby packages, due to the way that rdoc builds documentation files. This can be ignored.
- Overall, it looks okay to me but there seem to be some discrepancies with the
Ruby-specific guidelines at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby
e.g. it doesn't own %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/ and %prep isn't empty
- this may just be a matter of individual style
Actually, it does own %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}; it's just that we use the macro %{geminstdir} to do that. %prep not being empty is due to the Fedora guidelines being out of date; the unofficial way we have been doing pure ruby rubygems lately is to put everything into %prep and %install. If you think about it, that makes sense; doing an "rpmbuild -bp <spec>" will then get you a tree that you can look at, even if it is hidden beneath a directory tree.
If the above all makes sense to you, can you set this to fedora-review+ ? Thanks!
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=727899
Bug 727899 depends on bug 727887, which changed state.
Bug 727887 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-childprocess - A simple and reliable gem for controlling external programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727887
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
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=727899
Adam Huffman bloch@verdurin.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Adam Huffman bloch@verdurin.com 2011-08-04 10:56:24 EDT --- Thanks for the clarifications.
APPROVED
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=727899
--- Comment #5 from Chris Lalancette clalance@redhat.com 2011-08-04 11:24:04 EDT --- Thanks again!
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=727899
Chris Lalancette clalance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Chris Lalancette clalance@redhat.com 2011-08-04 11:26:36 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-selenium-webdriver Short Description: The next generation developer focused tool for automated testing of webapps Owners: clalance mmorsi Branches: f16 InitialCC:
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=727899
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-08-04 11:42:36 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=727899
Chris Lalancette clalance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-08-04 13:02:05
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org