[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 Toshio Kuratomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #19 from Toshio Kuratomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-23 16:21:31 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 --- Comment #18 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-22 10:49:55 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ruby-pam New Branches: None Owners: bkearney The original package name was incorrect. It should be renamed rubygem-pam. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-20 09:51:06 EDT --- Package Rename CVS Request === Package Name: rubygem-pam Short Description: PAM bindings for ruby Owners: bkearney Branches: F-9 F10 InitialCC: None Sorry...goofed the package name. Should have been rubygem-pam -- bk -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-19 18:16:23 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 --- Comment #14 from Darryl L. Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-17 08:53:52 EDT --- All is well with me. Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-17 08:58:18 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ruby-pam Short Description: PAM bindings for ruby Owners: bkearney Branches: F-9 F10 InitialCC: None -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 --- Comment #12 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-23 09:10:23 EDT --- Thank you for the review! I tested this by removing the link in /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pam-1.5.2/lib/pam.so and when launching with irb -rubygems I got an error when I attempted to require pam. I then modified the library itself to be pam.so instead of pam.1.5.2.so. This allowed the gem to install but also allowed this to work irb -rpam with only the gem install which I believe is incorrect. So, if the usage of the softlink in the gem directory to the arch directory is not allowed then I will look to add a single ruby file which loads up the versioned library. This seems like the best solution of meeting the rpm needs and the gem needs. Any concerns with this approach? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 --- Comment #13 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-23 16:22:00 EDT --- I have added a shim layer to the gem which in turn loads _pam which should pick up the libary from the arch load path. I followed the augeas pattern. As an aside, should this pattern be put into the packaging guidelines? New Spec File: http://bkearney.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-pam-1.5.3-1.fc9.src.rpm New SRPM: http://bkearney.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-pam.spec koji build clean one rpmlint warning for nodoc on ruby-pam (doc is in rugygem-pam) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 David Lutterkort [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #11 from David Lutterkort [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-22 13:36:06 EDT --- There's something not right with this specfile. When I build it, I get a file /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pam-1.5.2/lib/pam.so in the x86_64 RPM; that goes directly against the 'no arch-specific content in %gemdir' Why is this file even needed ? You already put the versioned .so into %ruby_sitearch, and the ruby-pam RPM puts an unversioned link into %ruby_sitearch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 --- Comment #10 from Darryl L. Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-16 11:27:27 EDT --- APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||ruby-pam -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 --- Comment #7 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-12 15:35:14 EDT --- * License was changed to LGPLv2+. The source website shows LGPL (which is all I can do) but the LICENS file shows LGPL 2.1 * rpmlint passes on the source rpm, with no warning * rpmline shows no-documentation and soft-link warnings on the rpms. They install and run fine. * Source0 now uses the macros * Builds fine in koji for i386 and x86_64 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=823198) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 --- Comment #5 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-08 14:29:53 EDT --- Newest Version. Ensured valid license and issue with source code / source rpm. Spec File: http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/42936/rubygem-pam.spec Source RPM: http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/42933/rubygem-pam-1.5.2-2.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 --- Comment #4 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-22 14:08:40 EDT --- Synced up license into. Changed the package name to be in line with the Ruby gem packaging stanhdards, added the requires. New Spec file is here: http://ruby-pam.rubyforge.org/git?p=ruby-pam.git;a=blob;f=rubygem-pam.spec; New Source RPM: http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/41730/rubygem-pam-1.5.2-2.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139
--- Comment #3 from Darryl L. Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-21 15:37:23
EDT ---
* General
XX - Package name
The secondary package delivering the binary library should be delivered in a
package named ruby-pam-lib.
XX - License info is accurate
XX - License tag is correct and licenses are approved
The website says LGPL without version.
The spec says LGPLv2+.
The COPYING file in the GEM lists the original authors name with no mention of
LGPL.
OK - License files are installed as %doc
OK - Specfile name
OK - Specfile is legible
OK - No prebuilt binaries included
OK - BuildRoot value (one of the recommended values)
OK - PreReq not used
OK - Source md5sum matches upstream
OK - No hardcoded pathnames
OK - Package owns all the files it installs
OK - 'Requires' create needed unowned directories
OK - Package builds successfully on i386 and x86_64 (mock)
OK - BuildRequires sufficient
OK - File permissions set properly
OK - Macro usage is consistent
OK - rpmlint is silent
* Package a rubygem
OK - Package is named rubygem-%{gemname}
XX - Source points to full URL of gem
Source0 is just the filename, not the full URL for downloading the source.
OK - Package version identical with gem version
XX - Package Requires and BuildRequires rubygems
No Requires: rubygems in the spec.
OK - Package provides rubygem(%{gemname}) = %version
OK - Package requires gem dependencies correctly
OK - %prep and %build are empty
OK - %gemdir defined properly, and gem installed into it
OK - Package owns its directories under %gemdir
** noarch rubygem
OK - No arch-specific content in %{gemdir}
OK - Package is noarch
** arch rubygem
OK - No arch specific content in %{gemdir}
OK - Defines ruby_sitearch from rbconfig
OK - arch specific content moved to %{ruby_sitearch}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 --- Comment #2 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-19 08:45:07 EDT --- I have made the changes per your suggestions. Please re-verify: pec URL: http://www.thincrust.net/download/rubygem-pam.spec SRPM URL: http://www.thincrust.net/download/rubygem-pam-1.5.2-2.fc9.src.rpm Description: Ruby bindings for pam. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 Darryl L. Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139
--- Comment #1 from Darryl L. Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-13 10:23:18
EDT ---
1. Source0 should be the full path for getting the source package, something
like: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ruby-pam/%{name}-%{version}.tgz
2. Source0 should use variables for the version (see above).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Customer Facing|--- |Yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458139] Review Request: ruby-pam - Ruby bindings for pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 Customer Facing||--- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
