Bug 2244510 - Review Request: rubygem-faraday1 - HTTP/REST API client library
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-faraday1 - HTTP/REST API client library
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-10-16 16:21 UTC by Benson Muite
Modified: 2024-11-08 17:24 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Benson Muite 2023-10-16 16:21:16 UTC
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/rubygem-faraday1/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06530498-rubygem-faraday1/rubygem-faraday1.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/rubygem-faraday1/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06530498-rubygem-faraday1/rubygem-faraday1-1.0.1-11.fc40.src.rpm

description:
HTTP/REST API client library.

fas: fed500

koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107600111

Comment:
This is a renaming request to allow the package rubygem-faraday to be upgraded
to the latest release version 2.

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Vít Ondruch 2023-10-17 12:35:24 UTC
The `Obsoletes:  rubygem-faraday < 1.0.1-10` should probably be either `<=` or `< 1.0.1-11`.

But in any case, are the Provides/Obsoletes actually needed? In current situation, rubygem-faraday and rubygem-faradary1 are the same. In the future, keep using rubygem-faraday (i.e. Faraday 2) is the preferred situation. If rubygem-faraday1 is needed for some purpose, then it should be pulled in via dependencies such as: `Requires: rubygem(faraday) < 2`. Or am I missing something?

Comment 2 Package Review 2024-10-17 00:45:25 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Comment 3 Benson Muite 2024-11-08 17:24:09 UTC
Will update.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.