https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 Christopher Meng <cickumqt(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: cookiejar - |Review Request: |he Ruby CookieJar is a |rubygem-cookiejar - he Ruby |library to help manage |CookieJar is a library to |client-side cookies in pure |help manage client-side |Ruby |cookies in pure Ruby Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 Mo Morsi <mmorsi(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mmorsi(a)redhat.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mmorsi(a)redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mo Morsi <mmorsi(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Taking this one. Couple initial things: - Spec has the wrong URL (for amq-protocol) - License should be BSD - 0.3.1 just released, please update package to that (release would be 1 for the new version) - Package builds fine in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6551588 Will give you the official review after these changes. 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 --- Comment #3 from Mo Morsi <mmorsi(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hey Nitesh some more comments: - Please rename the spec to 'rubygem-cookiejar.spec' so fedora-review will pick it up (srry for any confusion about this before) - Please bump the release up top (the next on should be 3) - Similarly please cleanup the changelog at the bottom, you should have an entry for each release w/ comments. The list should be in reverse chronological order, eg newest first to oldest last - The rspec command in the %check section should be "rspec -Ilib spec" - contributors.json should be rm'd or excluded - The "%{gem_instdir}/spec/*" under the files list should be replaced with "%doc %{gem_instdir}/spec/" - %{gem_cache} should be %exclude'd - the LICENSE file should be part of the main package and marked as %doc -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 Mo Morsi <mmorsi(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Mo Morsi <mmorsi(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Everything looks good nitesh save one nit, the 'Requires: ruby(rubygems)' should be 'Requires: rubygems'. Other than that fedora-review looks good (see below), package builds in koji, and satisfies guidelines. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6629677 Giving you the ACK provided you make that change (please upload the final version here w/ the new release / changelog entry) Note you still need sponsorship before this can make it in, we can sort that our via irc / email and/or continue working on packages. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - gems should require rubygems package Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-cookiejar-doc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mmorsi/workspace/fedora/rubygem-cookiejar/1063038 -rubygem-cookiejar/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gems/gems/cookiejar-0.3.1/spec [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc, /usr/share/gems/gems/cookiejar-0.3.1/spec [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 %doc. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [ ]: 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). [x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Ruby: [ ]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %doc /usr/share/gems/doc/cookiejar-0.3.1, %exclude /usr/share/gems/cache/cookiejar-0.3.1.gem, /usr/share/gems/specifications/cookiejar-0.3.1.gemspec [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-cookiejar-0.3.1-2.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-cookiejar-doc-0.3.1-2.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-cookiejar-0.3.1-2.fc21.src.rpm rubygem-cookiejar-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-cookiejar.src:58: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 58, tab: line 2) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-cookiejar rubygem-cookiejar-doc rubygem-cookiejar-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-cookiejar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(release) ruby(rubygems) rubygem-cookiejar-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-cookiejar Provides -------- rubygem-cookiejar: rubygem(cookiejar) rubygem-cookiejar rubygem-cookiejar-doc: rubygem-cookiejar-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/cookiejar-0.3.1.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 36bf16f494e44539a5579f2adea44e4ed0209238f57b9081accbcbbd1f3bfe96 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36bf16f494e44539a5579f2adea44e4ed0209238f57b9081accbcbbd1f3bfe96 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1063038 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 --- Comment #7 from Mo Morsi <mmorsi(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Looks good. Please make sure to add a comment w/ the full url to the final spec and srpm. Also going forward you may want to include more descriptive changelog entries than "update to comply with fedora guidelines". This package is fine, but something like "fix requirements" or "made __ specific change" for future changes / packages might be a good idea. Email'd a sponsor to inquire about getting your sponsorship (cc'd you). We can take that aspect from there. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 --- Comment #9 from Mo Morsi <mmorsi(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Went through this and compared it to the updated guidelines for rawhide https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts%2FRuby requires. If you are just submitting this to rawhide you can remove the following completely: Requires: ruby(release) Requires: rubygems As well as Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version} If you plan on including this package in F19 & F20, you will need to add the conditional around these, similar to here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Other than that the spec still looks good. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 --- Comment #11 from Nitesh Narayan Lal <niteshnarayan(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Final Changes made. SPEC:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-cookiejar.spec SRPM:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-cookiejar-0.3.2-... -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 Nitesh Narayan Lal <niteshnarayanlalleo(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |niteshnarayanlalleo(a)gmail.c | |om --- Comment #12 from Nitesh Narayan Lal <niteshnarayanlalleo(a)gmail.com&gt; --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name:rubygem-cookiejar Short Description:The Ruby CookieJar is a library to help manage client-side cookies in pure Ruby Upstream URL: https://github.com/dwaite/cookiejar Owners: niteshnarayan, mmorsi Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- rubygem-cookiejar-0.3.2-5.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED CC| |vondruch(a)redhat.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2018-05-03 03:29:05 --- Comment #17 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt; --- This has been in Fedora for ages 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