Latest upstream release: 1.7.0 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.6.4-2.fc24 URL: http://rubygems.org/gems/thin Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/4604/
Patching or scratch build for rubygem-thin-1.6.4 failed.
Created attachment 1162584 [details] Rebase-helper rebase-helper-debug.log log file. See for details and report the eventual error to rebase-helper https://github.com/phracek/rebase-helper/issues.
Following patches has been deleted: ['raven-use-system-cacert.patch']
I will do this!
Created attachment 1185639 [details] Update to Thin 1.7.0 Hi, I created a patch to update to latest version 1.7.0. Could you check this? I want to push this to both master and f25 branch. Thank you. # Highlight - The package dependency is ok - Updated the license information. Referred gemspec file and license list page on Fedora Project. - Fedora 22's end of life was passed. - %description was written based on README.md, however it was updated on the upstream. So, I update it for that. - Changed the logic to add executable bit to the files with shebang. Because new logic is easier to recognize target files. I sent the upstream pull-request for that. After merged, we can remove the lines in the future. Thanks.
The main purpose for this patch is to fix current version's broken dependency.
(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #5) > - Fedora 22's end of life was passed. There is no reason to update the versions, definitely not in this way. The condition could be dropped, but not changed the version from 22 to 23 > - %description was written based on README.md, however it was updated on the > upstream. So, I update it for that. I think that the original description was way better and that the upstream description is not enough. And also, the %file section was quite detailed, but that does not mean it was wrong. The more explicit the %file version is, the lower risk something is missing or something unexpected will sneak in. So would you mind to elaborate, why the %files section should be simplified?
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #7) > (In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #5) > > - Fedora 22's end of life was passed. > > There is no reason to update the versions, definitely not in this way. The > condition could be dropped, but not changed the version from 22 to 23 > > > - %description was written based on README.md, however it was updated on the > > upstream. So, I update it for that. > > I think that the original description was way better and that the upstream > description is not enough. I can agree for above things. > And also, the %file section was quite detailed, but that does not mean it > was wrong. The more explicit the %file version is, the lower risk something > is missing or something unexpected will sneak in. So would you mind to > elaborate, why the %files section should be simplified? I can not still agree for above thing. And I do not need to agree it. So, I like you can update based on my patch by yourself, and commit by your name.
> elaborate, why the %files section should be simplified? Though I have forgot the detail, maybe file or directory structure was changed, after version up. I had to modify %files section.
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
I have submitted for master and f25, following your opinion. About %files, I have committed on my way, as we have talked directly. I have and compared and checked the list of included files in both rubygem-thin rpm and rubygem-thin-doc rpm file for before and after modification. And it is correct. It is better to maintain the package for me.