Bug 843153 - Review Request: rubygem-sfcc - Ruby bindings for SBLIM client library
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-sfcc - Ruby bindings for SBLIM client library
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Vít Ondruch
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-07-25 18:05 UTC by Michal Minar
Modified: 2014-12-18 14:33 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-12-18 14:33:14 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
vondruch: fedora-review?


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michal Minar 2012-07-25 18:05:29 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.minami.cz/public/rubygem-sfcc.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.minami.cz/public/rubygem-sfcc-0.8.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description:
  Ruby bindings for SBLIM Small Foot CIM Client (SFCC) library used
  to directly access any CIMOM supporting CIM-XML.
Fedora Account System Username: miminar

Comment 1 Vít Ondruch 2012-07-26 12:32:49 UTC
I'll take it for a review.

Comment 2 Vít Ondruch 2012-07-26 12:48:43 UTC
* Source of the gem
  - Could you please explain what is the relation between your fork and the
    original gem, which could be found on RubyGems.org? I cannot imagine that
    I would approve your fork of the gem where the upstream lives on other place.
    I'll refrain from any further comments until you settle down this matter with
    upstream?

Thank you.

Comment 3 Michal Minar 2012-07-26 13:40:36 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> * Source of the gem
>   - Could you please explain what is the relation between your fork and the
>     original gem, which could be found on RubyGems.org? I cannot imagine that
>     I would approve your fork of the gem where the upstream lives on other
> place.
>     I'll refrain from any further comments until you settle down this matter
> with
>     upstream?
> 
> Thank you.

The main reason for mine fork was some missing features in upstream project needed by our team. Some of them were implemented by kkaempf in another fork, that are still to be accepted by upstream. So from my point of view,
the upstream is little bit unresponsive.
But you are right. I should push my changes to upstream first. Thank you for your observation.

Comment 4 Michal Minar 2014-12-18 14:33:14 UTC
Not me, neither my team is interested in this package any more. Closing this review for now.


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