Spec URL: http://packages.getwallaby.com/ruby-rhubarb.spec SRPM URL: http://packages.getwallaby.com/ruby-rhubarb-0.3.0-3.fc14.src.rpm Description: Rhubarb is a simple object-graph persistence framework for Ruby. It works with the SPQR object-management framework and exposes some useful functionality for versioned data.
A new SRPM is available at http://packages.getwallaby.com/ruby-rhubarb-0.4.0-3.fc14.src.rpm
The most recent SRPM is available from packages.getwallaby.com.
== Review == Good: - rpmlint checks return: ruby-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) versioned -> version ed, version-ed, version ruby-rhubarb.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) versioned -> version ed, version-ed, version ruby-rhubarb.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides ruby(rhubarb/rhubarb) All safe to ignore, although, I would strongly recommend that you consider appending = %{version} to that explicit provides, even if you're not planning on checking version of it at this time. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (ASL 2.0) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (288cd1251a41d8daa4dcc081f2f8b65b86eaab246babc3157e0d64eeab552c59) - package compiles on f16 (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Looks good, so APPROVED. Consider versioning that explicit provides before commit (and, like in the previous review, dropping the Requires: ruby).
Hi, could you please enlighten me why did you packaged the library as Ruby library instead of RubyGem?
Vit, it is packaged that way so it will work on EL5 (which doesn't have RubyGems).
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ruby-rhubarb Short Description: simple object-graph persistence library for Ruby Owners: willb Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
(In reply to comment #5) > Vit, it is packaged that way so it will work on EL5 (which doesn't have > RubyGems). Actually this is not true. RubyGems are available in EPEL5. Moreover, you are requesting just Fedora branches, so this argument is irrelevant for Fedora review.
ruby-rhubarb-0.4.1-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ruby-rhubarb-0.4.1-1.fc16
ruby-rhubarb-0.4.1-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ruby-rhubarb-0.4.1-1.fc15
Package ruby-rhubarb-0.4.1-1.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing ruby-rhubarb-0.4.1-1.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-0121/ruby-rhubarb-0.4.1-1.fc16 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
ruby-rhubarb-0.4.1-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
ruby-rhubarb-0.4.1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.