[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=193071 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 02:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
python spec which uses rm and %{__python} on consecutive lines
The intention of using the macroized form for the python executable is to
provide some flexibility for local rebuilds in setups where multiple versions of
python are installed. And upstream rpm (not in FC yet) uses that form for
computing sitelib and sitearch, we need to be in sync with that as long as those
variables are only conditionally defined in the template. Ditto perl.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 17:14 EST ---
You are right about following the guidelines very closely. I have fixed the
ruby_site* macros to coincide with the guidelines (no dir at the end, Ville
Skyttae pointed out that all outher scripting languages use _sitelib, not
_sitelibdir, so let's stick with that)
As for using %{__chmod}, %{__rm} vs chmod, rm, I am open to either, though I am
never quite sure what the recommended one is, and whether it is correct to rely
on the $PATH of the user building the RPM.
Updated:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-sqlite3.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-sqlite3-1.1.0-5.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 17:49 EST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
You are right about following the guidelines very closely. I have fixed the
ruby_site* macros to coincide with the guidelines (no dir at the end, Ville
Skyttae pointed out that all outher scripting languages use _sitelib, not
_sitelibdir, so let's stick with that)
As for using %{__chmod}, %{__rm} vs chmod, rm, I am open to either, though I
am
never quite sure what the recommended one is, and whether it is correct to
rely
on the $PATH of the user building the RPM.
It's up to you but be consistent about it.
My personal preference is not to trust the user's $PATH and use either macros or
full paths for commands that don't have macros. I think from Jason's
obsfucating macro terminology that his preference lies the other way...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 20:58 EST ---
If you really would prefer to type seven characters, five of which require the
shift key, instead of two for zero gain, then you're free to do so but you
should be consistent. Personally my eyes start to bleed and my wrists start to
ache in empathy everytime someone uses a ton of needless macros. However, even
the specfile templates aren't consistent about this. (See, for example, the
python spec which uses rm and %{__python} on consecutive lines.)
In any case, the latest package looks good to me. The only issue that hasn't
been addressed is that of the test suite; obviously we can't run it as is, but
now that we have functional guidelines, perhaps it will eventually be packaged
up and this package can then run its test suite.
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-08 23:26 EST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I wanted to keep it close to the entry in Config::CONFIG those get set from.
Do
you think the resulting macro names are too long ?
I don't think the length is a problem; what is at issue is the fact that what's
in the current guidelines doesn't match what's being done here. The first
approved Ruby package should follow the spec rather closely, I think.
So, if you want to keep it close to what's in Config::CONFIG, then the
guidelines don't reflect that and need to be changed, assuming it's not too late
to do that.
Finally, you use %{__chmod} instead of just plain chmod, but don't use
%{__rm}. Any reason for using just one obsfucating macro?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 20:02 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
The gemspec file looks like a source of useful data; I wonder if we could use
it
to generate a reasonable starting spec file.
I tried that with http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/gem2spec.html which works
reasonably well. The thing that makes me hesitant about packaging gems are
outlined at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RubyGems
The site{lib,arch} thing should be resolved now. The guidelines say
sitearchdir
and sitelib dir; is that we really wanted to go with?
I wanted to keep it close to the entry in Config::CONFIG those get set from. Do
you think the resulting macro names are too long ?
There's no ruby(abi) requirement.
Oops.
Is the explicit sqlite requirement necessary? rpm finds the libsqlite3.so.0
dependency on its own.
You are right - that was overkill
Review:
X No ruby(abi) requirement.
Fixed
Updated stuff:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-sqlite3.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-sqlite3-1.1.0-4.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 00:08 EST ---
My apologies; somehow this managed to slip my mind.
The first thing I notice is that the included test suite doesn't get run; it has
a dependency on FlexMock which of course isn't in Extras. I don't think it
should block this package, but it would definitely be nice to get FlexMock into
extras so that the test suite can be turned on.
The gemspec file looks like a source of useful data; I wonder if we could use it
to generate a reasonable starting spec file.
The site{lib,arch} thing should be resolved now. The guidelines say sitearchdir
and sitelib dir; is that we really wanted to go with?
There's no ruby(abi) requirement.
Interestingly, BR: ruby really is required; ruby-devel only pulls in ruby-libs.
Is the explicit sqlite requirement necessary? rpm finds the libsqlite3.so.0
dependency on its own.
Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
? specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X No ruby(abi) requirement.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
56e47e1736bd50e2b71f11726ff9ecdd sqlite3-ruby-1.1.0.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
ruby(sqlite3)
sqlite3_api.so()(64bit)
ruby-sqlite3 = 1.1.0-3.fc6
=
libruby.so.1.8()(64bit)
libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit)
sqlite = 3
* shared libraries are present, but internal to ruby.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
O %check is present; dependencies not yet available for running test suite.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-29 14:28 EST --- Ther Ruby guidelines are ratified now; taking this for review (probably a bit later today). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 20:21 EST ---
I addressed all these problems with an updated package
- the ruby_sitarch{,dir} happened because I started with the ruby specfile
template, but decided that I really want the macros to have the same name as the
entry in Config::CONFIG. I'll try and get the fedora-rpmdevtools template
updated once the guidelines have been finalized
- requires now ruby = 1.8 which is what the gemspec requires, too
- no more stripping; thanks for the tip
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-sqlite3.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-sqlite3-1.1.0-3.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 15:59 EST --- A couple of comments: The guidelines (which I think you wrote) use ruby_sitearchdir instead of ruby_sitearch. Not a big deal but I suppose we should try for consistency since these first few packages will stand as examples. You don't require a specific Ruby version. You manually strip the .so, which is a bad idea because it breaks the debuginfo package. (It ends up empty.) Everything is fine if you delete the call to strip. I'm guessing you saw an rpmlint warning about an unstripped binary; making it executable is sufficient it fix that. I wonder if we're any closer to getting fixed Ruby packages so that we can get the guidelines ratified. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-24 18:15 EST --- I ran rpmlint on both the SRPM, and an i386 rpm built under rawhide; both produce no output. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
