Bug 743007

Summary:	Review Request: rubygem-introspection - Dynamic inspection of the hierarchy of method definitions on a Ruby object
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Vít Ondruch <vondruch>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkabrda>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	bkabrda, notting, package-review, tdawson
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	bkabrda: 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:	2011-10-04 14:33:27 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:
Bug Depends On:	742935
Bug Blocks:

Description Vít Ondruch 2011-10-03 14:52:01 UTC

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection-0.0.2-1.fcf17.src.rpm
Description: Dynamic inspection of the hierarchy of method definitions on a Ruby object

Please note that there is a bit unclear licensing situation https://github.com/floehopper/introspection/issues/1

Comment 1 Vít Ondruch 2011-10-04 06:09:47 UTC

The license is MIT as clarified by upstream, so I'll update the spec file in a second.

Comment 2 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2011-10-04 06:43:31 UTC

I'm taking this one.

Comment 3 Vít Ondruch 2011-10-04 06:50:16 UTC

Spec with updated license:

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection-0.0.2-2.fcf17.src.rpm

Comment 4 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2011-10-04 07:26:41 UTC

* %{geminstdir}/README.md should be marked as %doc.
* The way you run tests doesn't actually run them (0 tests, 0 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors). When you run them this way: 'testrb -Ilib ./test/*_test.rb', you can discover, that you need to include BR: rubygem(metaclass) and BR: rubygem(builder) (the second one to satisfy the require 'blankslate' in snapshot_test.rb). Please clarify these BRs.
* Consider including license file from the upstream in the package (maybe as a separate source).
* Could you explain if there currently is a particular reason for R: rubygem-metaclass < 0.1?

Comment 5 Vít Ondruch 2011-10-04 08:27:43 UTC

(In reply to comment #4)
> * %{geminstdir}/README.md should be marked as %doc.

Moved into -doc subpackage and marked as %doc

> * The way you run tests doesn't actually run them (0 tests, 0 assertions, 0
> failures, 0 errors). When you run them this way: 'testrb -Ilib
> ./test/*_test.rb', you can discover, that you need to include BR:
> rubygem(metaclass) and BR: rubygem(builder) (the second one to satisfy the
> require 'blankslate' in snapshot_test.rb). Please clarify these BRs.

Good catch!

> * Consider including license file from the upstream in the package (maybe as a
> separate source).

I'll include the license file as soon as it will be available in official release. In the meantime, I have added comment into the .spec file. It is not hard requirement, so it should not be blocker.

> * Could you explain if there currently is a particular reason for R:
> rubygem-metaclass < 0.1?

It follows the upstream suggested dependency, i.e. the original ~> 0.0.1 dependency transform into > 0.0.1 and <= 0.1, see [1]


Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection-0.0.2-3.fcf17.src.rpm



[1] http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/16

Comment 6 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2011-10-04 09:48:06 UTC

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > * %{geminstdir}/README.md should be marked as %doc.
> 
> Moved into -doc subpackage and marked as %doc
> 
> > * The way you run tests doesn't actually run them (0 tests, 0 assertions, 0
> > failures, 0 errors). When you run them this way: 'testrb -Ilib
> > ./test/*_test.rb', you can discover, that you need to include BR:
> > rubygem(metaclass) and BR: rubygem(builder) (the second one to satisfy the
> > require 'blankslate' in snapshot_test.rb). Please clarify these BRs.
> 
> Good catch!

Great, the tests are run now.

> 
> > * Consider including license file from the upstream in the package (maybe as a
> > separate source).
> 
> I'll include the license file as soon as it will be available in official
> release. In the meantime, I have added comment into the .spec file. It is not
> hard requirement, so it should not be blocker.
> 

Sounds fine.

> > * Could you explain if there currently is a particular reason for R:
> > rubygem-metaclass < 0.1?
> 
> It follows the upstream suggested dependency, i.e. the original ~> 0.0.1
> dependency transform into > 0.0.1 and <= 0.1, see [1]
> 

Yes, sorry about that.

> 
> Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection-0.0.2-3.fcf17.src.rpm
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/16

Package seems OK now, APPROVED.

Comment 7 Vít Ondruch 2011-10-04 10:26:37 UTC

Thank you for your review!



New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-introspection
Short Description: Dynamic inspection of the hierarchy of method definitions on a Ruby object
Owners: vondruch
Branches: 
InitialCC:

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2011-10-04 12:24:23 UTC

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 9 Troy Dawson 2014-07-29 18:58:45 UTC

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: rubygem-introspection
New Branches: epel7
Owners: tdawson

Comment 10 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-07-29 19:19:45 UTC

Git done (by process-git-requests).