Bug 1128094

Summary: "gems should require rubygems package" is no longer true.
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Steve Traylen <steve.traylen>
Component: fedora-reviewAssignee: Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni>
Status: CLOSED UPSTREAM QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 22CC: 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 
Description of problem:


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
fedora-review-0.5.1-2.fc20

Steps to Reproduce:
1. .spec file without Requires: rubygems


Actual results:

- gems should require rubygems package
  Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-colorize-doc
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems



Expected results:

Requires: rubygems being missing is quite correct 



Additional info:

From fedora core 21 

* There should not be any rubygem Requires nor Provides listed, since those are autogenerated.
* There should not be Requires: ruby(release), unless you want to explicitly specify Ruby version compatibility. Automatically generated dependency on RubyGems (Requires: ruby(rubygems)) is enough.
Comment 1 Alec Leamas 2014-10-14 12:34:21 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?
Comment 2 Jaroslav Reznik 2015-03-03 16:11:27 UTC 
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
Comment 3 Alec Leamas 2015-04-15 14:29:20 UTC 
Steve: this is a simple fix if it's the same situation f20-f21-f22. But is it? Otherwise, could you outline the conditions?
Comment 4 Josef Stribny 2015-05-06 12:25:11 UTC 
> 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.
Comment 5 Alec Leamas 2015-05-21 10:28:31 UTC 
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).
Comment 6 Josef Stribny 2015-05-25 06:30:38 UTC 
I can confirm that the branches fixes this issue.
Comment 7 Alec Leamas 2015-05-25 14:25:58 UTC 
Fixed in https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/commit/?h=devel&id=992cb0a25d9a71c