[Bug 1859414] Review Request: rubygem-actionmailbox - Email composition and delivery framework (part of Rails)

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859414

Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Pavel Valena from comment #7)
> (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #3)
> >   - Also, while minor nit, there is probably missing '/' in the command for tests.
> 
> Doesn't have to be there, and AFAIK it doesn't change the behaviour. I'll
> add it for readability.

I don't mind if you remove the `\` after tools, but I mind consistency. Thx

> >  * Keep the default generated BRs together:
> >   - It would be nice to keep these together:
> >   - Mixing rubygems-devel in between other requires for instance does not make the review/maintenance easier.
> 
> Right, the intent was to have them sorted alphabetically, as the comment
> says (I've used `sort -u`).

Strange, how the `rubygems-devel` got mixed in between `rubygems()` then? Does
the sort ignore brackets?

Still, I would prefer to keep the default BRs on top, but that is my
preference, I'll leave it up to you.

> >  * Circular dependency with rubygem-rails
> >   - I think that using `rails` gem on various places is shortcut which brings its own issues. I think it would be better to list all the dependencies excluding `rails` itself.
> 
> Sure, let's trim those down. (Note that it's only a runtime dependency, so
> it does't matter until something depends on actionmailbox at buildtime.)

Not sure I understand what you mean by this? rubygem-rails depends on
rubygem-actionmailbox and rubygem-actionmailbox had `BR: rubygem-rails`. That
is IMO circular dependency which is good to break.

So now it is much better.

> >  * Keep the original tests in place
> >   - I prefer to keep the expanded tests in place and copy them to the location they needs to be. But it might be confusing either way.
> 
> Ok. Is there any benefit to having them duplicated?

I am not saying there is benefit in duplication, but shuffling the directory on
the disk does not help either. Of course I would prefer symlink if that was
possible, but otherwise I think the `cp` has the closest behavior to `mv`. May
be it could help if linked just the files, but that is OT for this review
(unless you want to experiment a bit ;) ) ...

> Thanks for the review!

YAW. The package looks good => APPROVED.


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux