Bug 346241
| Summary: | Review Request: ruby-ldap - Ruby LDAP libraries | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Michael Stahnke <mastahnke> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, mtasaka, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mtasaka:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | 0.9.7-3.fc8 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2007-11-20 18:05:30 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Michael Stahnke
2007-10-23 04:29:34 UTC
I see I was added to need sponsor. I have other packages, just not other Ruby packages. I am already a member of Fedora Extras, or packagers, or whatever the group is called ( I really don't recall the name currently). Ah.. sorry.. I misread your message. Actually you already have several packages. For 0.9.7-1:
* rdoc dependency
- Would you explain why this package should have
(Build)Requires: ruby-ldap?
* Redundant Requires
- "Requires: openldap openssl" is not needed. rpmbuild checks
libraries' dependency and automatically adds it to binary rpms.
* SourceURL
- For sourceforge tarball, please follow:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
* Stripping binaries
- Stripping binaries by yourself is not allowed because this makes
it impossible to create debuginfo rpm.
* Timestamp
- For this package you can (should) use INSTALL="install -p" option to
make install to keep timestamps on installed .rb files.
* %check
- What is this empty %check entry for?
* By the way, subdirectory test/ exists in tarball.
If possible, please execute some tests in %check section.
* File entry
- On i386
---------------------------------------------------------------------
warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux/ldap.so
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ruby_sitelib points to /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8,
ruby_sitearch points to /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux (on i386),
so the file above is listed twice. Please avoid this.
! Note: on x86_64,
ruby_sitelib points to /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8, where
ruby_sitearch points to /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux.
* Documents
- You may also want to add "FAQ" to %doc.
Spec URL: http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/ruby-ldap.spec SRPM URL: http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/ruby-ldap-0.9.7-2.fc7.src.rpm I removed the rdoc br, in my orignal version, I was using it and forgot to remove it. Fixed BR by removing openldap and openssl. Fixed SF source URL. Removed strip of ldap.so. Added install -p to make command. You can't run the tests without openldap-server, and I didn't really want to add that the BR. The tests are rather minimal. Fixed %files section to remove duplicate and added FAQ to %doc. Well,
----------------------------------------------------
# For noarch packages: ruby_sitelib
%{ruby_sitelib}/*
# For arch-specific packages: ruby_sitearch
#%{ruby_sitearch}/*
----------------------------------------------------
You cannot do this.
ldap.so is actually installed under ruby_sitearch
(on x86_64, it is /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/),
where on x86_64, ruby_sitelib is /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/.
For this package you can treat this issue by specifying
file lists a little more verbosely.
Perhaps
-------------------------------------------------------------------
%{ruby_sitelib}/ldap/
%{ruby_sitearch}/ldap.so
-------------------------------------------------------------------
should solve file entry issue.
Ok, I think I understand the %files issue. I was grabbing the entire directory x86_64 (or i386), and my package shouldn't own that. I just misread your comment last time. Spec URL: http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/ruby-ldap.spec SRPM URL: http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/ruby-ldap-0.9.7-3.fc7.src.rpm Okay. -------------------------------------------------- This package (ruby-ldap) is APPROVED by me -------------------------------------------------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ruby-ldap Short Description: Ruby LDAP libraries Owners: stahnma Branches: InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes And then I realized I forgot branches... New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ruby-ldap Short Description: Ruby LDAP libraries Owners: stahnma Branches: EL4, EL5, F7, F8, dev InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. Please close this bug when rebuild and request for bodhi are done. ruby-ldap-0.9.7-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update ruby-ldap' Okay, now closing. ruby-ldap-0.9.7-3.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update ruby-ldap' ruby-ldap-0.9.7-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. ruby-ldap-0.9.7-3.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |