Bug 842459
| Summary: | Review Request: rubygem-uplift-bind-plugin - Uplift plugin for BIND service | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Troy Dawson <tdawson> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Michael S. <misc> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | misc, notting, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | misc:
fedora-review?
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2012-07-31 22:56:35 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: | 839064, 842891 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Troy Dawson
2012-07-23 22:26:52 UTC
Hi, for some reason, there is a problem with the ruby subpackage : $ rpm --eval %ruby_sitelibdir /usr/local/share/ruby/site_ruby $ rpm -qpl ruby-uplift-bind-plugin-0.8.5-2.fc17.noarch.rpm /usr/local/share/ruby/site_ruby/uplift-bind-plugin /usr/local/share/ruby/site_ruby/uplift-bind-plugin.rb and that's forbidden to place a file in /usr/local/ from a rpm. Hmm ... then I'm going to have a couple other packages with the same problem.
The problem is that I replaced the variable %{ruby_sitelib} with %{ruby_sitelibdir}
So the old way ruby_sitelib was determined with
ruby -rrbconfig -e "puts Config::CONFIG['sitelibdir']"
On RHEL6 you get
/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8
On Fedora 17 and 18 you get
/usr/local/share/ruby/site_ruby
I don't mind moving it to where it really needs to be. But I don't understand why the stock ruby variables are putting files in a place that is forbidden.
Aha ... I just found where it talks about this in the documentation.
"Previously, %{ruby_sitelibdir} and %{ruby_sitearchdir} were used. However, as they are meant only for local installations, please use %{ruby_vendorlibdir} and %{ruby_vendorarchdir} instead."
I will update the spec and rpm with %{ruby_vendorlibdir} and repost them.
Fixed: I have changed %{ruby_sitelibdir} to be %{ruby_vendorlibdir} which cleaned up having files in /usr/local/
I have also added LICENSE to the %DOC.
Spec URL: http://www.yortnoswad.org/packages/review/rubygem-uplift-bind-plugin.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.yortnoswad.org/packages/review/rubygem-uplift-bind-plugin-0.8.5-3.fc18.src.rpm
Nitpicking a little, but i think BuildRequires could be simplied ( ruby-devel pull ruby, rubygems-devel pull rubygems ) Why does it require selinux policy and policycoreutils-python ? ( nothing in the current code seems to need it ). And shouldn't it requires rubygem(dnsruby) ? ( instead of bind + bind-utils, since the bind server seems to be able to be hosted remotely, since this use regular dns update ) ruby and ruby-devel, and rubygems and rubygems-devel. I just like to be complete. But to be honest, I'm not sure it needs the ruby and ruby-devel. Those were required to get the original ruby_sitelib directory. I'll see how it builds if I take those off. selinux-policy-targeted and policycoreutils-python ... good eye there. This spec file originally had some selinux stuff in the %post section, which was taken out. I'll take those out. As far as using rubygem(dnsruby) versus bind and bind-utils, I don't know. I didn't write the code and I don't know what calls they are using. This package has been renamed rubygem-openshift-origin-dns-bind. Here is the new review request for it. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844817 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 844817 *** |