Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368 --- Comment #16 from Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #15) > Umm... there are some issues I did not notice before. > Not sure why I missed them, however anyway: > > * Non-equality dependency > - Well, I did not know that rpm accepts something like > "Requires: rubygem(inifile) *=>* 0.4.1" (not >= but > =>), however I don't think this is a normal usage on > rpm. > > Note that "rpm -qp --requires rubygem-bicho-0.0.6-2.1.fc17.src.rpm" > shows "rubygem(inifile) >= 0.4.1", so "=>" is actually > regarded as ">=" (by rpm) currently. Done. > * Unsatisfied dependency > - Well, bicho requiers inifile no less than 0.4.1 and less than > 0.5 (according to metadata), however rubygem-inifile imported > into Fedora is 2.0.2, so rubygem-bicho (built from this package) > won't work. Please fix dependency for inifile. > > ! Note that you have to modify dependency not on rpm spec file, > but also on %gem_spec file included in rubygem-bicho binary rpm. I'm going to work with the upstream to fix this. There doesn't seem to be a dependency on that specific version of inifile since the code works well with inifile 2.0.2. Actually, it appears that all of the requirements in the gemspec seem to be unnecessarily specific or even, really, completely necessary. I don't have any but inifile installed and yet the code works correctly for me. > ? (Question) test result on %check > - From build log, test result on %check looks like: > -------------------------------------------------- > + ruby -Ilib test/helper.rb test/test_novell_plugin.rb test/test_query.rb > Run options: > > # Running tests: > > > > Finished tests in 0.000805s, 0.0000 tests/s, 0.0000 assertions/s. > > 0 tests, 0 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 skips > -------------------------------------------------- > Note "0 tests". I don't regard this as a blocker for this review, > however please recheck this. > > * Build failure > - This srpm does not build on koji (for F-19). at least > "BR: rubygem(minitest)" or so is needed. ref: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4836144 > > * File list > - The following entry > -------------------------------------------------- > %{gem_instdir}/test > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/test > -------------------------------------------------- > on the _same_ binary rpm is confusing. The latter entry > (i.e. only %exclude ... line) is enough. Dropped the former line. > * Installing original gem, not regenerated gem > - In %build: > -------------------------------------------------- > %build > gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec > > gem install --local \ > --install-dir .%{gem_dir} \ > --bindir .%{_bindir} \ > --force \ > %{SOURCE0} > -------------------------------------------------- > Well, using %{SOURCE0} (i.e. original gem file) here > is not what ruby packaging guideline requests. Use > regenerated gem file here > (see: example written on: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#Building_gems > ) Fixed. Updated SPEC: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-bicho.spec Updated SRPM: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6-2.2.fc17.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4845739 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mvOd9YzVxR&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review