Spec URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/Ruby_on_Rails/rubygem-gettext_activerecord.spec SRPM URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/Ruby_on_Rails/rubygem-gettext_activerecord-2.0.4-1.fc.src.rpm Description: gettext_activerecord provides the localization for ActiveRecord-2.2 or later using Ruby-GetText-Package. * Validation messages translation * Model translation * extract messages from models with the rake task. koji scratch build: - For F-12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1399962 - For F-11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1399956 Note that currently this packge is for F-11 and above.
http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/Ruby_on_Rails/rubygem-gettext_activerecord.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/Ruby_on_Rails/rubygem-gettext_activerecord-2.0.4-2.fc.src.rpm * Fri Jun 12 2009 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp> - 2.0.4-2 - Also mark gettext mo files under test/ directory with %%lang
Here are my notes for this package: ! The timestamps in the source gem file are all wrong. Please ask upstream to correct this. ? rpmlint says rubygem-gettext_activerecord-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation Shouldn't the contents of this package be marked %doc ? * Please remove the binary .mo files in %prep ? The COPYING file you are packaging claims LGPL as the license. The source files say "You may redistribute it and/or modify it under the same license terms as Ruby." Meanwhile the license tag says "GPLv2 or Ruby" What's going on? :) ? What are these BuildRequires(check)'s for? (I never saw them before. And Fedora guidelines don't mention them) * A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. build.log says warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gettext_activerecord-2.0.4/test/test_parser.rb warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gettext_activerecord-2.0.4/test/test_validations.rb * The indentation seems wrong with this line * extract messages from models with the rake task. * Ruby packaging guidelines say that the %build section of the specfile should be empty and the install should be performed with the command gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gemdir} --force %{SOURCE0} Any reason why you are doing it differently? - koji rawhide build seems fine: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1414345
Hi: (In reply to comment #2) > ! The timestamps in the source gem file are all wrong. Please ask upstream to > correct this. - This is rather the issue on "gem", not this gem specific. > ? rpmlint says > rubygem-gettext_activerecord-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation > Shouldn't the contents of this package be marked %doc ? - I don't think it is needed to mark as %doc the files in the rpm which is already declared as "document rpm" > * Please remove the binary .mo files in %prep - Done at %build > ? The COPYING file you are packaging claims LGPL as the license. > The source files say "You may redistribute it and/or modify it under the same > license terms as Ruby." > Meanwhile the license tag says "GPLv2 or Ruby" > What's going on? :) - Actually from the source code this is licensed under the same license as ruby. Note that ruby is licensed under "GPLv2 or Ruby" (well, a little complicated...), so the license tag should be so. > ? What are these BuildRequires(check)'s for? (I never saw them before. And > Fedora guidelines don't mention them) - The intention for this is that "These BuildRequires is needed only for %check". > * A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. > build.log says > warning: File listed twice: > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gettext_activerecord-2.0.4/test/test_parser.rb > warning: File listed twice: > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gettext_activerecord-2.0.4/test/test_validations.rb - See the test case bug 505995. I thought this worked as expected. Workarround applied. > * The indentation seems wrong with this line > * extract messages from models with the rake task. - Fixed. > * Ruby packaging guidelines say that the %build section of the specfile should > be empty and the install should be performed with the command > gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gemdir} --force %{SOURCE0} > Any reason why you are doing it differently? - Actually it is under discussion whether "gem install" should completely moved from %install to %prep or %build. This suggestion was from other people but now I also think that "gem install" should not done at %install directly because: - Actually when gem creates C module extension, rubygem guideline already says "gem --install" should be done at %build because of creating debuginfo rpm correctly (and this proposal was from me) - For this package, spec file contains %check. When gem is installed under %buildroot, %check must be done also under %buildroot. This is troublesome when %check (for this package "rake test") creates some additional files because this will cause some unneeded filed to be packaged or causes "installed but not packaged" error. http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/Ruby_on_Rails/rubygem-gettext_activerecord.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/Ruby_on_Rails/rubygem-gettext_activerecord-2.0.4-3.fc.src.rpm * Mon Jun 15 2009 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp> - 2.0.4-3 - Recreate gettext mo files (BR: rubygem(gettext)) - Change BR: ruby(sqlite) -> rubygem(sqlite3-ruby) - Some cleanups
(In reply to comment #3) > Hi: Hi, thanks for the update! > (In reply to comment #2) > > ? The COPYING file you are packaging claims LGPL as the license. > > The source files say "You may redistribute it and/or modify it under the > > same license terms as Ruby." > > Meanwhile the license tag says "GPLv2 or Ruby" > > What's going on? :) > - Actually from the source code this is licensed under the same > license as ruby. Note that ruby is licensed under "GPLv2 or Ruby" > (well, a little complicated...), so the license tag should > be so. > Okay, but the COPYING file that is being packaged says LGPL, which is wrong according to what you say. Shouldn't we drop the wrong COPYING file? > > ? What are these BuildRequires(check)'s for? (I never saw them before. And > > Fedora guidelines don't mention them) > - The intention for this is that "These BuildRequires is needed only > for %check". > Thanks. Now the package fails to build on F-11 + rake --trace makemo /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.qYI3ky: line 41: rake: command not found I moved rubygem(rake) from BR(check) to regular BR, but then I got + rake --trace makemo /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31: command not found: allison --path I couldn't figure out what package provides allison on F-11. > > > * Ruby packaging guidelines say that the %build section of the specfile > > should be empty and the install should be performed with the command > > gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gemdir} --force > > %{SOURCE0} > > Any reason why you are doing it differently? > - Actually it is under discussion whether "gem install" should completely > moved from %install to %prep or %build. This suggestion was from other > people but now I also think that "gem install" should not done at %install > directly > because: > - Actually when gem creates C module extension, rubygem guideline > already says "gem --install" should be done at %build because > of creating debuginfo rpm correctly (and this proposal was > from me) > - For this package, spec file contains %check. When gem is installed > under %buildroot, %check must be done also under %buildroot. > This is troublesome when %check (for this package "rake test") creates > some additional files because this will cause some unneeded filed > to be packaged or causes "installed but not packaged" error. > Do you know by any chance when these changes in the guidelines will be approved? I can't find the relevant discussion. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong mailing lists.
(In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > ? The COPYING file you are packaging claims LGPL as the license. > > > The source files say "You may redistribute it and/or modify it under the > > > same license terms as Ruby." > > > Meanwhile the license tag says "GPLv2 or Ruby" > > > What's going on? :) > > - Actually from the source code this is licensed under the same > > license as ruby. Note that ruby is licensed under "GPLv2 or Ruby" > > (well, a little complicated...), so the license tag should > > be so. > > > > Okay, but the COPYING file that is being packaged says LGPL, which is wrong > according to what you say. Shouldn't we drop the wrong COPYING file? - Removed. > Thanks. Now the package fails to build on F-11 > + rake --trace makemo > /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.qYI3ky: line 41: rake: command not found - Ah.. fixed. > I moved rubygem(rake) from BR(check) to regular BR, but then I got > + rake --trace makemo > /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31: command not > found: allison --path > > I couldn't figure out what package provides allison on F-11. - allison is not packaged on Fedora yet (and I have not checked the dependency...) > Do you know by any chance when these changes in the guidelines will be > approved? I can't find the relevant discussion. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong > mailing lists. - Well, I will re-propose this later on fedora-packaging (after I write a draft: formal proposal needs a draft). http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/Ruby_on_Rails/rubygem-gettext_activerecord-2.0.4-4.fc.src.rpm http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/Ruby_on_Rails/rubygem-gettext_activerecord.spec * Tue Jun 16 2009 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp> - 2.0.4-4 - Remove COPYING for now - Change BR: now rubygem(rake) is needed to create gettext mo
Thank you. But this still fails to build on F-11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1415248 I don't understand why, it builds fine on rawhide.
Ah.. http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/Ruby_on_Rails/rubygem-gettext_activerecord.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/Ruby_on_Rails/rubygem-gettext_activerecord-2.0.4-5.fc.src.rpm * Tue Jun 16 2009 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp> - 2.0.4-5 - More BR: rubygem(activerecord) for recreating mo files dist-f12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1415364 dist-f11-updates-candidate: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1415362
Thanks. One last question: From the SPEC file: %global activerecord_req 2.3.2 ... %description gettext_activerecord provides the localization for ActiveRecord-2.2 or later using Ruby-GetText-Package. There is a discrepancy here on version number. Am I missing something?
Well, that is not a blocker. You can answer it later. --------------------------------------------------------------- This package (rubygem-gettext_activerecord) is APPROVED by oget ---------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for quick review! (In reply to comment #8) > %global activerecord_req 2.3.2 > ... > %description > gettext_activerecord provides the localization for ActiveRecord-2.2 or later > using Ruby-GetText-Package. I will remove "-2.2 or later" part. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-gettext_activerecord Short Description: Localization support for ActiveRecord by Ruby-GetText-Package Owners: mtasaka Branches: F-11 InitialCC: (nobody)
(By the way I packaged rubygem-allison as bug 506168, not strictly needed for this package, though)
CVS done.
Rebuilt and push request submitted, closing. Thank you for the review and CVS procedure!
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: rubygem-gettext_activerecord New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: stahnma InitialCC: Mamoru has said I can maintain any of his ruby packages in EPEL.
Git done (by process-git-requests).