Bug 634608 - Review Request: rubygem-ruby-ole - Ruby OLE library
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-ruby-ole - Ruby OLE library
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
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: 2010-09-16 14:13 UTC by Michael Stahnke
Modified: 2010-11-19 00:10 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rubygem-ruby-ole-1.2.11.1-1.fc14
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-10-29 17:17:48 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
mtasaka: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michael Stahnke 2010-09-16 14:13:56 UTC
Spec URL: http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-ruby-ole.spec
SRPM URL: http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-ruby-ole-1.2.10.1-1.fc15.src.rpm
Description: A library for easy read/write access to OLE compound documents for Ruby.

Comment 1 Mamoru TASAKA 2010-09-17 19:57:04 UTC
I will take this one. Instead would you review my another review
request bug 635126 (submitted just now)?

Comment 2 Mamoru TASAKA 2010-09-18 18:07:25 UTC
Well, I don't see any files which indicates the license of
this gem. Would you ask the upstream?

Comment 3 Mamoru TASAKA 2010-09-22 17:40:33 UTC
On bug 633549:

--- Comment #6 from Michael Stahnke <mastahnke> 2010-09-22 10:13:19 JST ---
According to http://code.google.com/p/ruby-ole/ it is GPLv2.  Should I file a
bug with upstream to include that in the file package?

At least please contact the upstream to verify the actual
license (well, as I have seen not a few cases where the information
on the upstream URL is outdated, I usually don't want to trust
the information on the upstream URL and want to check what is actually
written in the source tarball)

Comment 4 Michael Stahnke 2010-10-12 13:58:19 UTC
Issue submitted upstream. 

http://code.google.com/p/ruby-ole/issues/detail?id=6

Comment 5 Michael Stahnke 2010-10-25 14:37:57 UTC
Response from Upstream:


Comment #1 on issue 6 by aquasync: Unable to package for Linux distro due to missing License file or specification in source code files
http://code.google.com/p/ruby-ole/issues/detail?id=6

Hi, the project been re-licenced as MIT, and a COPYING file added. Released as 1.2.11.

----------


I will update package and post here shortly.

Comment 7 Mamoru TASAKA 2010-10-25 18:06:38 UTC
Okay.

* Unused macro
  - Defined macro %ruby_sitelib is used nowhere

* BuildRoot
  - BuildRoot line is no longer used on Fedora and EPEL6.

Not blockers
----------------------------------------------------
    This package (rubygem-ruby-ole) is APPROVED
    by mtasaka
----------------------------------------------------

Comment 8 Michael Stahnke 2010-10-25 18:26:37 UTC
I'll remove the sitelib for sure. 

The BuildRoot stuff I leave in because I spend a lot of time in EPEL5 and I don't think it hurts anything. 



New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-ruby-ole
Short Description: Ruby OLE library
Owners: stahnma
Branches: EL5 EL6 F13 F14 F15
InitialCC:

Comment 9 Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-25 18:45:16 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

We are not yet doing f15 branches.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2010-10-26 14:11:05 UTC
rubygem-ruby-ole-1.2.11.1-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ruby-ole-1.2.11.1-1.fc14

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2010-10-26 14:11:12 UTC
rubygem-ruby-ole-1.2.11.1-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ruby-ole-1.2.11.1-1.fc13

Comment 12 Mamoru TASAKA 2010-10-26 18:58:20 UTC
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2010-October/513410.html

Maybe this suggests some incompatibility of ruby-ole with ruby 1.8.5?
If so maybe applying some patch on EL-5 is needed.

Comment 13 Michael Stahnke 2010-10-26 20:14:38 UTC
It does, it's a DateTime representation issue.  Basically the tests expect the format Z for the timezone when the actual output is +00:00:00.  It's something I have seen in several gems working with 1.8.5 vs. 1.8.6.  I believe either rubinus or rcov has this same issue.  

My plan was to play with it in epel-testing and ensure I could do everything I needed to there.  I have no plans to push to stable until I am certain functionality is correct.

Comment 14 Michael Stahnke 2010-10-26 20:26:24 UTC
I can patch out the failure in the tests easily.  I'm just not certain that's the right thing to do yet.  I was looking for information in how Datetime vs Date vs Time was handled in 1.8.5 vs 1.8.6.  


Basically the patch is something like this. 

+               #assert_equal '2007-01-01T00:00:00+00:00', time.to_s
+               assert_equal '2007-01-01T00:00:00Z', time.to_s

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2010-10-27 22:37:16 UTC
rubygem-ruby-ole-1.2.11.1-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update rubygem-ruby-ole'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ruby-ole-1.2.11.1-1.fc13

Comment 16 Mamoru TASAKA 2010-10-29 17:17:48 UTC
Closing.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2010-11-19 00:09:46 UTC
rubygem-ruby-ole-1.2.11.1-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2010-11-19 00:10:42 UTC
rubygem-ruby-ole-1.2.11.1-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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