Bug 1128094
Summary: | "gems should require rubygems package" is no longer true. | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Steve Traylen <steve.traylen> |
Component: | fedora-review | Assignee: | Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni> |
Status: | CLOSED UPSTREAM | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 22 | CC: | jstribny, leamas.alec, pingou, pnemade, sochotni, steve.traylen |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-05-25 14:25:58 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Steve Traylen
2014-08-08 09:49:43 UTC
The new test would actually be the reverse, emitting a warning if the explicit deps are there although they shouldn't. What I don't understand if how to handle still long-to-eol f20. The same way? This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 22 development cycle. Changing version to '22'. More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora22 Steve: this is a simple fix if it's the same situation f20-f21-f22. But is it? Otherwise, could you outline the conditions? > this is a simple fix if it's the same situation f20-f21-f22. But is it?
f21 and higher. f20 still needs explicit requires.
I have pushed two feature branches ruby21 (for f21) and ruby22 (f22). At a glance, this solves this problem. In this branch, the ruby plugin is also a separate package, although still within the same srpm. A small step. I need help from ruby-knowledged people to review and test this branch (anyone, they are identical from s ruby perspective). I can confirm that the branches fixes this issue. |