Bug 459883

Summary: Review Request: rubygem-git - A package for using Git in Ruby code
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Jeroen van Meeuwen <vanmeeuwen+fedora>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jonathan Roberts <jonrob.one>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review, jonathan.roberts.uk, jonrob.one, lutter, notting
Target Milestone: ---Flags: jonrob.one: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-10-03 22:31:43 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:

Comment 1 Jonathan Roberts 2008-09-07 13:15:06 UTC
RPM Lint: Clear.
Package name: Clear
Spec file: Clear 
License: Clear
Actual License: Clear
%doc License: No license.
Spec file language: Clear.
Spec file readable: Clear.
Upstream source vs. used tarball: Clear
Compile and Build:
 - F-8: Builds
 - F-9: Builds
 - rawhide: Builds
 - EL-5: Builds

Applicable Package Guidelines:

Locales: - no other locales specified
Shared libs: none.

Relocatable: not applicable
Directory and file ownership: Clear.
No duplicate files in %files: Clear.
File Permissions: Clear. 
Macro usage: Clear.
Code vs. Content: Clear.
(Large) Documentation: Clear. 
%doc affecting runtime: Clear.
Header files in -devel package: Not applicable.
Static Libraries in -static package: Not applicable. 
pkgconfig Requires: Not applicable.
Library files: Not applicable.
Devel requires base package: Not applicable.
.la libtool archives: Not applicable.
Duplicate ownership of files/directories: Clear. 
Remove BuildRoot: Clear.
UTF-8 filenames: Clear.

Comment 3 Jonathan Roberts 2008-09-07 13:22:03 UTC
RPM Lint: Clear.
Package name: Clear
Spec file: Clear 
License: Clear
Actual License: Clear
%doc License: No license.
Spec file language: Clear.
Spec file readable: Clear.
Upstream source vs. used tarball: Clear
Compile and Build:
 - F-8: Builds
 - F-9: Builds
 - rawhide: Builds
 - EL-5: Builds

Applicable Package Guidelines:

Locales: - no other locales specified
Shared libs: none.

Relocatable: not applicable
Directory and file ownership: Clear.
No duplicate files in %files: Clear.
File Permissions: Clear. 
Macro usage: Clear.
Code vs. Content: Clear.
(Large) Documentation: Clear. 
%doc affecting runtime: Clear.
Header files in -devel package: Not applicable.
Static Libraries in -static package: Not applicable. 
pkgconfig Requires: Not applicable.
Library files: Not applicable.
Devel requires base package: Not applicable.
.la libtool archives: Not applicable.
Duplicate ownership of files/directories: Clear. 
Remove BuildRoot: Clear.
UTF-8 filenames: Clear.

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2008-09-07 15:10:55 UTC
This seems to be missing the Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 line mandated by the guidelines.  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby

It's also missing the explicit build depencency on ruby, although I don't quite understand the point of that since rubygems should be pulling it in anyway.

Comment 6 Jonathan Roberts 2008-09-17 09:37:33 UTC
According to the guidelines, ruby packages *must* include a BuildRequires: ruby in the spec file, so could you add that to the spec?

Besides that, I'm happy with the package, but still don't have the ability to set + flags on fedora-review. 

Sorry it's taken me so long to return to this review!

Comment 7 Jeroen van Meeuwen 2008-09-24 11:57:34 UTC
The ruby build requires is implicit in the BuildRequires: rubygems, and as such has been accepted before.

Comment 8 Jonathan Roberts 2008-09-24 15:30:57 UTC
OK, cool with me then. But like I said, I don't have the ability to set + tag on fedora-review, so someone else will need to look into that. In the meantime, I'll look into getting the ability to set + tags!

Comment 9 Jonathan Roberts 2008-09-30 11:44:43 UTC
Figured out the permission problem, changed assignee and marked fedora-review + Sorry for any delays.

Comment 10 Jeroen van Meeuwen 2008-09-30 11:47:54 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-git
Short Description: A package for using Git in Ruby code
Owners: kanarip
Branches: EL-5 F-8 F-9
InitialCC: kanarip

Comment 11 Jeroen van Meeuwen 2008-09-30 11:48:13 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-git
Short Description: A package for using Git in Ruby code
Owners: kanarip
Branches: EL-5 F-8 F-9
InitialCC: kanarip

Comment 12 Kevin Fenzi 2008-10-01 18:57:03 UTC
cvs done.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2008-10-02 00:27:50 UTC
rubygem-git-1.0.7-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-git-1.0.7-4.fc9

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2008-10-02 00:27:53 UTC
rubygem-git-1.0.7-4.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-git-1.0.7-4.fc8

Comment 15 David Lutterkort 2008-10-03 19:17:29 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> This seems to be missing the Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 line mandated by the
> guidelines.  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby
> 
> It's also missing the explicit build depencency on ruby, although I don't quite
> understand the point of that since rubygems should be pulling it in anyway.

The explicit 'BR: ruby' for rubygems was unintentional; would be better if FPC revises the wording so that plain ruby packages must have a 'BR: ruby' and rubygem packages a 'BR: rubygems'

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2008-10-03 22:31:40 UTC
rubygem-git-1.0.7-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2008-10-03 22:35:26 UTC
rubygem-git-1.0.7-4.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.