[Bug 1372718] Review Request: rubygem-puma - A simple, fast, threaded, and highly concurrent HTTP 1.1 server

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718

Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #6 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Jun, first of all, could you please bump the release between the review
iterations? Coming late to the review, it is impossible to see what did you
actually changed in the .spec file.


* Mark %{gem_instdir}/Manifest.txt as a %doc
  - %{gem_instdir}/Manifest.txt should be %doc, shouldn't be?

* Move %{gem_instdir}/tools into -doc
  - What is the content of %{gem_instdir}/tools directory? It does not look
    essential to me, hence I'd suggest to move it into -doc subpackage.

* Remove unnecessary seds
  - Please remove the seds, where you are replacing the BUILD_EXT_DIR and use
    following command to execute the test suite instead:

```
RUBYOPT=-I.:lib:$(dirs +1)%{gem_extdir_mri} ruby \
   -rminitest/autorun \
   -e 'Dir.glob "./test/**/test_*.rb", &method(:require)' \
    -- -v
```

    and

```
RUBYOPT=-I$(dirs +2)%{gem_extdir_mri} sh -x run.sh
```

* Purpose of Patch1?
  - Not sure about purpose of the Patch1, since if I comment it out and use
    the previous commands, I can execute the test suite just fine => I suggest
    to drop this patch altogether.
  - You are right that upstream is inconsistent in this regard, but I'd say
    that the particular require you are fixing is the way how the test suites
    typically works, while the proposed fix is antipattern. IOW you should
    propose fix fixing all the other files.

* Missing dependency on openssl-devel
  - Yes, you have noticed it correctly, that you need openssl-devel to enable
    HTTPS support, which we definitely want on Fedora.

* Shebangs in %{gem_instdir}/bin
  - I'd suggest against changing the shebangs. Yes, rpmlint complains about
    them, but these are not executed by enduser typically, so I consider them
    false positive and the rpmlint check too strict.

* Regenerate the parser using Ragel
  - The extension contains parser in C, generated using Ragel. Since current
    guidelines suggest to regenerate the files [1], it'd be nice if you try to
    regenerate them (see the Rakefile for details).


[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_of_pregenerated_code

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




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