| Summary: | Review Request: rubygem-archivist - A rails 3 model archiving system based on acts_as_archive | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Maros Zatko <mzatko> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Marek Mahut <mmahut> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | gregor, mfojtik, mmahut, notting, package-review, vondruch |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mfojtik:
fedora-review+
gwync: 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: | 2011-09-14 12:49:25 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
Maros Zatko
2011-09-06 14:21:49 UTC
unofficial feedback: rpmlint rubygem-archivist-1.0.5.1-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint rubygem-archivist-1.0.5.1-1.fc15.noarch.rpm rubygem-archivist.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Are you sure --no-rdoc and --no-ri in gem install is right? otherwise it looks good. Review:
<snip>
Requires: ruby(abi) = %{rubyabi}
....
Requires: ruby
</snip>
* Is this necessary?
* Is the %prep section necessary? I can't see any tests running there. In %prep you copy all gem files with gem install in one place and in %install you move them to another. Why not use gem install in %install section?
* Remove the 'echo %{SOURCE0}'
* Is the rubygem(shoulda) really needed as a Runtime dependency?
removed:
requirement of ruby and shoulda,
'echo %{SOURCE0}'
added:
%doc section
ri and rdocs are now part of package
Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rubygem-archivist.spec
SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rubygem-archivist-1.0.5.1-2.fc15.src.rpm
Looks safe. Suggestion: Move %doc to -doc subpackage :) REVIEW+ Taking for sponsorship. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-archivist Short Description: A rails 3 model archiving system based on acts_as_archive Owners: mzatko Branches: f15 InitialCC: I don't think you can set up you as the owner, we can change the ownership after you get sponsored. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-archivist Short Description: A rails 3 model archiving system based on acts_as_archive Owners: mmahut Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: mzatko Git done (by process-git-requests). Thank you, building it now. rubygem-archivist-1.0.5.1-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-archivist-1.0.5.1-2.fc15 rubygem-archivist-1.0.5.1-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. (In reply to comment #2) > Review: > > <snip> > Requires: ruby(abi) = %{rubyabi} > .... > Requires: ruby > </snip> > > * Is this necessary? > * Is the %prep section necessary? I can't see any tests running there. In %prep > you copy all gem files with gem install in one place and in %install you move > them to another. Why not use gem install in %install section? > * Remove the 'echo %{SOURCE0}' > * Is the rubygem(shoulda) really needed as a Runtime dependency? Don't that forget we have JRuby in Fedora now. If JRuby are going to provide ruby(abi) (and they should if they are not doing so yet), the it makes sense. However this is unfortunately gray area yet :/ Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: rubygem-archivist New Branches: f18 Owners: vondruch jzigmund mmahut InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). |