Bug 317581 - Review Request: ruby-rpm - Ruby bindings for RPM
Summary: Review Request: ruby-rpm - Ruby bindings for RPM
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mamoru TASAKA
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-10-03 22:49 UTC by David Lutterkort
Modified: 2013-04-30 23:40 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-10-31 03:44:14 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
mtasaka: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description David Lutterkort 2007-10-03 22:49:39 UTC
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-rpm.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-rpm-1.2.3-1.src.rpm
Description: Bindings for accessing RPM packages and databases from Ruby

Comment 1 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-10-07 08:32:45 UTC
Some random comments:

* I guess you wrote
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby ?
  Then please follow ruby guideline.
  - "Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8" is needed
  - Also I usually add "BuildRequies: ruby(abi) = 1.8" for consistency.
  - This package should provide "ruby(rpm) = %{version}-%{release}".

* Change License tag
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines
* Source must be given by full URL.
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
* Please use the requested buildroot (check the section "BuildRoot tag"
  of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
* [ "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] && is not needed
* We now recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-)
* This does not be rebuilt on dist-f8.
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=185877
  On dist-fc7-updates-candidate, this can be rebuilt
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=185880
  At least "BR: popt-devel" is needed for F-8+.

Comment 2 David Lutterkort 2007-10-08 23:36:38 UTC
My apologies for the shoddy initial submission and thanks for reviewing it anyway. 

I have addressed all the points you raised above; the specfile now works in my
mock buildroots from RHEL-4 to rawhide

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-rpm.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-rpm-1.2.3-2.src.rpm

Comment 3 David Lutterkort 2007-10-09 00:07:48 UTC
Forgot to mention: the only warning I get from rpmlint is
   W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ruby-rpm-1.2.3/doc/refm.rd.ja

Any idea what encoding that file is ? (I don't know any Japanese, so I won't
know if I recoded anything right)


Comment 4 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-10-09 07:39:33 UTC
Well, for 1.2.3-2:

* File dependency
-----------------------------------------------------
BuildRequires: /usr/include/popt.h
-----------------------------------------------------
  - Because of a certain reason, we don't recommend to
    use this type of (Build)Requires (please check the
    section "File Dependencies" of
    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
    I don't know well about RHEL, however for fedora
-----------------------------------------------------
%if 0%{?fedora} > 8
BuildRequires: popt-devel
%endif
-----------------------------------------------------
    is recommended.

* SourceURL
  - It seems that "20469" should be "26403"
  - However 
    http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/26403/ruby-rpm-1.2.3.tgz
    seems different from the tarball in your srpm?
  ! Well, for rubyforge.org, the number like "26403" 
    seems to change every time new version is released.

* Encoding
-----------------------------------------------------
Forgot to mention: the only warning I get from rpmlint is
   W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ruby-rpm-1.2.3/doc/refm.rd.ja

Any idea what encoding that file is ? (I don't know any Japanese, so I won't
know if I recoded anything right)
-----------------------------------------------------
  - This file is encoded in EUC-JP (well, I am a Japanese)
    (Many Japanese documents in *nix are encoded in EUC-JP or
     ISO-2022-JP, and many Japanese documents in M$ are encoded
     in SHIFT-JIS).


Comment 5 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-10-15 15:13:51 UTC
ping?

Comment 6 David Lutterkort 2007-10-19 22:51:21 UTC
I have addressed the first two issues.
Spec: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-rpm.spec
SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-rpm-1.2.3-3.src.rpm

> Well, for 1.2.3-2:
> 
> * File dependency
> -----------------------------------------------------
> BuildRequires: /usr/include/popt.h
> -----------------------------------------------------

Fixed.

> * SourceURL
>   - It seems that "20469" should be "26403"
>   - However 
>     http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/26403/ruby-rpm-1.2.3.tgz
>     seems different from the tarball in your srpm?
>   ! Well, for rubyforge.org, the number like "26403" 
>     seems to change every time new version is released.

Yeah, rubyforge has this annoying habit of inserting a random number into the
URL. Fixed.

> * Encoding
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Forgot to mention: the only warning I get from rpmlint is
>    W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ruby-rpm-1.2.3/doc/refm.rd.ja
> 
> Any idea what encoding that file is ? (I don't know any Japanese, so I won't
> know if I recoded anything right)
> -----------------------------------------------------
>   - This file is encoded in EUC-JP (well, I am a Japanese)
>     (Many Japanese documents in *nix are encoded in EUC-JP or
>      ISO-2022-JP, and many Japanese documents in M$ are encoded
>      in SHIFT-JIS).

recode EUC-JP..UTF-8 refused to work on this file. For now, it's unchanged. not
sure if it's readable for a Japanese reader.


Comment 7 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-10-20 11:50:23 UTC
Okay.

(In reply to comment #6)

> > * Encoding
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Forgot to mention: the only warning I get from rpmlint is
> >    W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ruby-rpm-1.2.3/doc/refm.rd.ja
> > 
> > Any idea what encoding that file is ? (I don't know any Japanese, so I won't
> > know if I recoded anything right)
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> >   - This file is encoded in EUC-JP (well, I am a Japanese)
> >     (Many Japanese documents in *nix are encoded in EUC-JP or
> >      ISO-2022-JP, and many Japanese documents in M$ are encoded
> >      in SHIFT-JIS).
> 
> recode EUC-JP..UTF-8 refused to work on this file. For now, it's unchanged. not
> sure if it's readable for a Japanese reader.

Well, actually I have never used recode.. I usually use iconv like:
----------------------------------------------------------------
iconv -f EUC-JP -t UTF-8 refm.rd.ja > refm.rd.ja.tmp && \
  ( touch -r refm.rd.ja refm.rd.ja.tmp ; mv -f refm.rd.ja.tmp refm.rd.ja )
----------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------
  This packge (ruby-rpm) is APPROVED by me
----------------------------------------------------------------


Comment 8 David Lutterkort 2007-10-27 01:18:54 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: ruby-rpm
Short Description: Ruby bindings for RPM
Owners: lutter
Branches: F-7 F-8
InitialCC: 
Cvsextras Commits: yes

Comment 9 David Lutterkort 2007-10-31 03:44:14 UTC
Something seems fishy with the CVS setup:
(1) there is no common directory in ruby-rpm/
(2) each of the branch directories (devel/, F-7/, F-8/) has a common dir
(3) any make operation ('make new-sources FILES=ruby-rpm.tgz' and even 'make
help') just prints

  rpmq: no arguments given for query
  rpmq: no arguments given for query

and then hangs on a 'grep -i ^BuildArch:.*noarch'

Comment 10 Kevin Fenzi 2007-10-31 05:03:29 UTC
Odd. The checkout looks normal here... 
Without ruby installed I get a spew of: 
sh: ruby: command not found
but then the 'make help' or 'make srpm' works fine. 

Perhaps a clean checkout would help?
Feel free to hop over to #fedora-admin for more realtime debugging. 

Comment 11 David Lutterkort 2007-10-31 15:44:57 UTC
Sorry about that .. problem was on my end (I hadn't put the specfile in place
yet)  and submitted the above comment by mistake


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