[Bug 969877] Review Request: rubygem-timers - Pure Ruby one-shot and periodic timers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969877

--- Comment #4 from Axilleas Pipinellis <axilleas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ---

New Spec:
http://axilleas.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-timers/rubygem-timers.spec
New SRPM:
http://axilleas.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-timers/rubygem-timers-1.1.0-2.fc19.src.rpm

------------------------------

(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2)
> (In reply to Axilleas Pipinellis from comment #0)
> > SRPM URL:
> > https://github.com/axilleas/fedora/blob/master/packages/rubygem-timers/
> > rubygem-timers-1.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm?raw=true
> 
> This is a bit weird URL. The one you provided for the .spec file is more
> wget friendly. This is just convenience remark ;)

You are right. I had opened a ticket [0] to request access at fedorapeople, so
you will find any future packages there :)

> * Summary vs Description
>   - Don't you have summary and description fields swapped? Summary is
> typically
>     brief version of Description, while you have it the opposite way. Also
> the
>     summary provided by upstream is "Pure Ruby one-shot and periodic timers"
>     IMO, while you have this text in description.

Oops, I had them swapped in a try-and-error attempt when rpmlint complained
about Summary beeing too long. Fixed. 

> * Test suite
>   - "pushd ." makes no sense IMO.
>   - It would be better to do "push .%{gem_instdir}" instead. Currently, you
> are
>     testing the unpacked version of gem, i.e. the gem as is unpacked in %prep
>     section. That works for plain Ruby gem, but you could not use this
> approach
>     for binary gem, since you would miss the compiled extension.

Sorry about that. I have yet to understand what each command does. I asked
about popd/pushd at the developers channel just yesterday.

> Otherwise, the package looks good.
> 
> However, prior I sponsor you and since this is trivial package, could you
> please take look on some other packages and do some informal review of them?
> You can finish their review later, once officially sponsored. Thanks.
> 
> 
> [1]
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

By informal review you mean what exactly? Just find a package that needs review
and express my thoughts at the bugzilla? 

(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #3)
> BTW, I almost forget, could you please introduce yourself on fedora-devel ML
> [1]? Thanks.
> 
> 
> [1]
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
> Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Introduce_yourself

Done [1]. 

--------

[0] https://fedorahosted.org/packager-sponsors/ticket/67
[1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-June/183634.html

-- 
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=7RfkQWfrjI&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]