Bug 719908

Summary: Review Request: rubygem-multi_json - A gem to provide swappable JSON backends
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Vít Ondruch <vondruch>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkabrda>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: bkabrda, fotios, mastahnke, notting, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: bkabrda: fedora‑review+
limburgher: 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: 2011-11-14 11:21:45 EST Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 738744    

Description Vít Ondruch 2011-07-08 07:25:25 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-multi_json.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-multi_json-1.0.3-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: A gem to provide swappable JSON backends utilizing Yajl::Ruby, the JSON gem, JSON pure, or a vendored version of okjson.

Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3186344
Comment 1 Vít Ondruch 2011-09-21 02:05:57 EDT
*** Bug 738721 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2011-10-21 04:55:55 EDT
I'm taking this one.
Comment 3 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2011-10-21 05:22:58 EDT
- I'm not sure whether marking %{geminstdir}/Rakefile as %doc is appropriate. In my opinion, Rakefile is not documentation (although it is not needed for runtime and should stay in the documentation subpackage).
- Okjson (the fallback json engine for multi_json) seems to be bundled from https://github.com/kr/okjson, but the author of okjson says that his library is meant for vendoring. I think that unbundling okjson wouldn't make much sense in this case (therefore I don't suggest any change to your specfile, I just think it's worth mentioning here) - what is your opinion on this matter? I'd like to make this clear before I approve your package.
Comment 4 Vít Ondruch 2011-10-21 09:42:29 EDT
(In reply to comment #3)
> - I'm not sure whether marking %{geminstdir}/Rakefile as %doc is appropriate.
> In my opinion, Rakefile is not documentation (although it is not needed for
> runtime and should stay in the documentation subpackage).

You are right. Fixed.

> - Okjson (the fallback json engine for multi_json) seems to be bundled from
> https://github.com/kr/okjson, but the author of okjson says that his library is
> meant for vendoring. I think that unbundling okjson wouldn't make much sense in
> this case (therefore I don't suggest any change to your specfile, I just think
> it's worth mentioning here) - what is your opinion on this matter? I'd like to
> make this clear before I approve your package.

Sorry, I did not noticed :( This is my opinion: 

https://github.com/kr/okjson/issues/2
https://github.com/intridea/multi_json/issues/30
Comment 5 Vít Ondruch 2011-10-24 08:17:40 EDT
Unfortunately authors of both, multi_json and OkJson are pretty happy with the state of matter, therefore I am asking FPC for exception for OkJson as a copy lib [1]. Lets see what will follow ...

[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/113
Comment 6 Vít Ondruch 2011-11-11 09:28:44 EST
Great, the OkJson was granted exception for bundling.

So here are the latest packages, which reflect your comments:

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-multi_json.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-multi_json-1.0.3-2.fcf17.src.rpm

Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3507536
Comment 7 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2011-11-14 02:02:25 EST
Everything looks fine now, package is APPROVED.
Comment 8 Vít Ondruch 2011-11-14 04:35:12 EST
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-multi_json
Short Description: A gem to provide swappable JSON backends
Owners: vondruch
Branches: 
InitialCC:
Comment 9 Jon Ciesla 2011-11-14 10:46:47 EST
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 10 Michael Stahnke 2012-01-30 00:18:43 EST
Did this make it into F16?
Comment 11 Vít Ondruch 2012-01-30 03:34:58 EST
(In reply to comment #10)
> Did this make it into F16?

No. I am not pushing new packages into older releases without reasons. Do you like it in F16?