Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 437574
Review Request: ruby-pg - A Ruby interface for the PostgreSQL database engine
Last modified: 2010-04-30 13:41:48 EDT
Spec URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/ruby-pg/ruby-pg.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/ruby-pg/ruby-pg-0.7.9.2008.02.05-1.f8.src.rpm Description: ruby-pg is a Ruby interface to the PostgreSQL Relational Database Management System. ruby-pg is a fork of the unmaintained ruby-postgres project. ruby-pg is API-compatible (a drop-in replacement) with ruby-postgres.
rpmlint on SRPM is clean. rpmlint on RPMS: 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [limb@fawkes SPECS]$ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/i386/ruby-pg-* ruby-pg.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7.9.2008.02.05 0.7.9.2008.02.05-1.fc9 The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. ruby-pg.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided ruby-postgres If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package must also be provided in order to provide clean upgrade paths and not cause unnecessary dependency breakage. If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the provides. Fix both. Though indicated to by under the Ruby license, in the spec and on the site, it includes a few copies of the GPL. Why is this? It's not a blocker, just odd. Per Ruby guidelines: ---- Each Ruby package must indicate the Ruby ABI version it depends on with a line like Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 Ruby packages must require ruby at build time with a BuildRequires: ruby, and may indicate the minimal ruby version they need for building. ---- - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig Fix, or explain why this wouldn't be necessary. - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. Are the .h files in ext/ not useful for this purpose? Otherwise, no other blockers on full review.
Ping?
Here are the new sets: SRPM: http://www.gunduz.org/temp/ruby-pg-0.7.9.2008.08.17-1.f9.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.gunduz.org/temp/ruby-pg.spec The only issues I saw is: ruby-pg.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7.9.2008.08.17-1 ['0.7.9.2008.08.17-1.f9', '0.7.9.2008.08.17-1.f9'] The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. I think we can ignore this, right? ruby-pg.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided ruby-postgres If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage. If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the Provides. This package is provided in Fedora. What does this message mean? Thanks.
ruby-pg.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided ruby-postgres If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage. If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the Provides. This is all I still see. What it means is that this package Obsoletes another but does not Provide it. If this package is to replace ruby-postgres, you need Obsoletes: ruby-postgres <= the current fedora version of that pacakge Provides: ruby-postgres And to do http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife for ruby-postgres, or in this case have the owner do it. If it is not meant to replace it, remove the Obsoletes. What about the header files in ext?
Devrim, do you still have any interest in this package? If so, I'm happy to continue, but if not, we should probably close this.
I'm not that much interested :(
Ok, closing. If you reconsider someday, reopen and nag me. :)