Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: ruby https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226381 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-12-23 10:42 EST ------- For 1.8.6.111-3.fc9: (I maybe missing something else. I will recheck this) ? License - I always wonder about this. What does "Ruby" license mean? My understanding is that when we talk "this is licensed under the same license of Ruby", this means GPL+ and (Ruby original license), is this wrong? From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html : ----------------------------------------------------------- License of Ruby This is a free software license, compatible with the GPL via an explicit dual-licensing clause. ----------------------------------------------------------- - For ext/openssl: ext/openssl uses OpenSSL, ----------------------------------------------------------- 978 gcc -shared -o ../../.ext/i386-linux/openssl.so ossl_x509name.o ossl_pkey_dsa.o ossl_pkey_rsa.o ossl_x509store .o ossl_x509revoked.o ossl_engine.o ossl_pkey_dh.o ossl_config.o ossl_pkcs7.o ossl_bn.o openssl_missing.o ossl_pkcs12. o ossl_cipher.o ossl_asn1.o ossl_bio.o ossl_ssl.o ossl.o ossl_hmac.o ossl_x509crl.o ossl_x509ext.o ossl_x509req.o ossl _ocsp.o ossl_pkey.o ossl_rand.o ossl_x509.o ossl_x509attr.o ossl_x509cert.o ossl_digest.o ossl_ns_spki.o -L"." -L"../. ." -L. -rdynamic -Wl,-export-dynamic -lruby -lssl -lcrypto -lpthread -ldl -lcrypt -lm -lc 979 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-1.8.6.111/ruby-1.8.6-p111/ext/openssl' ----------------------------------------------------------- However OpenSSL license is GPLv2 incompatible (I don't know for GPLv3). Is this part legally okay? * SourceURL - Please don't comment out Source[1-3] full URL (rpmbuild support full URLs for not only Source0). (Or you just uncompressed and then recompressed again? If so, we want to use what is given from upstream directly as much as possible) * Requires - Does not ruby-tcltk require ruby? At least /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/tkextlib/pkg_checker.rb (on i386) contains ----------------------------------------------------------- 1 #!/usr/bin/env ruby ----------------------------------------------------------- ! For ruby-rdoc, "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" is redundant as ruby-irb already requires it. (Same for ruby-ri). * Consistent usage of macros - If you want to use %__mkdir_p, please also use %__rm, %__make, etc for consistency. * Timestamps We want to keep timestamps as much as possible. A. Please use "-p" option when using "install" or "cp" commands. B. Please change: ----------------------------------------------------------- @@ -181,7 +178,7 @@ --disable-rpath \ --with-ruby-prefix=%{_prefix}/lib -make RUBY_INSTALL_NAME=ruby %{?_smp_mflags} +make RUBY_INSTALL_NAME=ruby COPY="cp -p" %{?_smp_mflags} %ifarch ia64 # Miscompilation? Buggy code? rm -f parse.o ----------------------------------------------------------- ! rpm -bi --short-circuit ! (Some reviewers perhaps don't mind this, however) rpm -bi --short-circuit fails when done more than twice: To pass multiple time short-circuit installation, the following seem to be needed. ----------------------------------------------------------- @@ -206,6 +203,7 @@ %endif # installing documents and exapmles... +rm -rf tmp-ruby-docs mkdir tmp-ruby-docs cd tmp-ruby-docs @@ -303,19 +297,20 @@ # generate ri doc rubybuilddir=$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}-%{arcver} +rm -rf %{name}-%{arcver}/.ext/rdoc LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir} RUBYLIB=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/ruby/%{rubyxver}:$RPM_BUILD_ROO T%{_libdir}/ruby/%{rubyxver}/%{_normalized_cpu}-%{_target_os} make -C $rubybuilddir DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install-doc #DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/ruby -I $rubyb uilddir -I $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/ruby/%{rubyxver}/%{_normalized_cpu}-%{_target_os}/ -I $rubybuilddir/lib $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/rdoc --all --ri-system $rubybuilddir ----------------------------------------------------------- ! Argument list too long. - When I try normal rpmbuild as my default user, it stops with "Argument list too long" error. ----------------------------------------------------------- @@ -278,7 +276,7 @@ done # make sure that all doc files are the world-readable -find -type f | xargs chmod 0644 +find -type f -exec chmod 0644 {} ';' # convert to utf-8 for i in `find -type f`; do ----------------------------------------------------------- * Some seemingly redundant scripts - Are the following parts needed? ------------------------------------------------------------ @@ -286,10 +284,6 @@ if [ $? != 0 ]; then iconv -f iso8859-1 -t utf-8 $i > $.new && mv $i.new $i || exit 1 fi - if [ -f $i.new ]; then - echo "Failed to convert with iconv." - exit 1 - fi done @@ -338,7 +333,6 @@ %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -rm -rf tmp-ruby-docs %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig ------------------------------------------------------------- - Also, are there any reasons you prefer tar x"v"f? (for %setup we usually suppress verbose output). * Duplicate directories: - On i386, build.log says: -------------------------------------------------------------- 24078 + cp -pr ruby-1.8.6-p111/LEGAL /var/tmp/ruby-1.8.6.111-3.fc9-root-mockbuild/usr/share/doc/ruby-libs-1.8.6.111 24079 + cp -pr ruby-1.8.6-p111/LGPL /var/tmp/ruby-1.8.6.111-3.fc9-root-mockbuild/usr/share/doc/ruby-libs-1.8.6.111 24080 + exit 0 24081 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby 24082 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8 24083 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby 24084 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8 24085 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux 24086 Provides: bigdecimal.so bubblebabble.so cparse.so curses.so dbm.so digest.so dl.so enumerator.so etc.so fcntl.so gdbm.so iconv.so libruby = 1.8.6.111-3.fc9 libruby.so.1.8 md5.so nkf.so openssl.so pty.so readline.so rmd160.so ruby(abi) = 1.8 sdbm.so sha1.so sha2.so socket.so stringio.so strscan.so syck.so syslog.so thread.so wait.so zlib.so 24087 Requires(interp): /sbin/ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig -------------------------------------------------------------- IMO the following is better. -------------------------------------------------------------- @@ -384,12 +378,14 @@ %doc %{name}-%{arcver}/GPL %doc %{name}-%{arcver}/LEGAL %doc %{name}-%{arcver}/LGPL -%dir %{_libdir}/ruby %dir %{_prefix}/lib/ruby -%dir %{_libdir}/ruby/%{rubyxver} %dir %{_prefix}/lib/ruby/%{rubyxver} -%dir %{_libdir}/ruby/%{rubyxver}/%{_normalized_cpu}-%{_target_os} +%ifnarch i386 ppc +%dir %{_libdir}/ruby +%dir %{_libdir}/ruby/%{rubyxver} %{sitedir} +%endif +%dir %{_libdir}/ruby/%{rubyxver}/%{_normalized_cpu}-%{_target_os} %{sitedir2} ## the following files should goes into ruby-tcltk package. %exclude %{_prefix}/lib/ruby/%{rubyxver}/*tk.rb -------------------------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review