Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-haml - XHTML/XML templating engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-haml - XHTML/XML templating engine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mbabej@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
Spec URL: http://mogurakun.web.runbox.net/rubygem-haml.spec SRPM URL: http://mogurakun.web.runbox.net/rubygem-haml-2.2.14-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description: Haml (HTML Abstraction Markup Language) is a layer on top of XHTML or XML that's designed to express the structure of XHTML or XML documents in a non-repetitive, elegant, easy way, using indentation rather than closing tags and allowing Ruby to be embedded with ease.
rpmlint rubygem-haml.spec: rubygem-haml.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: engine_test.patch 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint rubygem-haml-2.2.14-1.fc12.noarch.rpm: rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Number/normalize%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Object/is_haml%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/CommentNode/invisible%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/Node/perform%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/Node/options%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Number/convertable%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/ImportNode/invisible%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Engine/Line/comment%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/PropNode/perform%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/RuleNode/perform%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/PropNode/invalid_child%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/CommentNode/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Helpers/action_view%3f-c.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Plugin/Rack/disable_native_plugin%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Template/rails_xss_safe%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Number/int%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/ActionView/Base/delegate_template_exists%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/PropNode/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/IfNode/options%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Literal/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/ImportNode/perform%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Util/has%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Number/unitless%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/RuleNode/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/RuleNode/continued%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Lexer/done%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Util/assert_html_safe%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/Node/invalid_child%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Plugin/options%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Engine/html%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/Node/%3c%3c-i.yaml %3c rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Engine/html5%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Util/ruby1_8%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Helpers/block_is_haml%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Number/legal_units%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Exec/Generic/parse%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Util/rails_xss_safe%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/Node/invisible%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Engine/xhtml%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/Node/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/ActionView/Helpers/InstanceTag/is_haml%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Engine/html4%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Literal/assert_int%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Helpers/is_haml%3f-i.yaml %3f 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 44 warnings.
Notes: Patch0 is applied manually at %install stage; the misspelled-macro warnings are false positives (rdoc/ri deals with punctuation by escaping it into %xx form)
This is my first package, so i'm looking for a sponsor.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-02 13:38:54 EDT --- $ gem list -b haml returns that the latest is 2.2.15 and it seems to have been released on 2009-12-01. Would you update first?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #2 from Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com 2009-12-02 14:42:15 EDT --- Done. Updated packages are at the same place (http://mogurakun.web.runbox.net/)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-03 13:23:10 EDT --- Some notes:
* %define -> %global - Now Fedora prefers to use %global over %define.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over...
* License - test/haml/spec/README.md is under WTFPL so the license tag should be "MIT and WTFPL".
* Requires - Please add the needed rubygem related dependency. For example, lib/haml/html.rb contains: -------------------------------------------------------- 62 require 'hpricot' -------------------------------------------------------- So this package may need "Requires: rubygem(hpricot)" (here not speaking of BuildRequires). Note that I don't know if this dependency is optional or not. Also please check other dependency (if any).
* %check - I think * hardcoding test files as %test_files is not preferable. It is difficult to see what this file list came from. * also even if hardcoding these files is needed, defining %test_files is not needed because - %test_files is in essence used only in one place (in %check) - Whether adding executable permission to a script or not should be determined (for this case) by checking if the script has shebang or not, and should not be determined by hardcoded file list.
I think - fixing Rakefile and execute "rake test" - or using ------------------------------------------------------------ pushd %{buildroot}%{geminstdir} # The following -path list is from Rakefile find * \ -path 'test/*/*_test.rb' \ -not -path 'test/rails/*' \ -not -path 'test/plugins/*' \ -not -path 'test/haml/spec/*' | \ while read f do ruby $f done ------------------------------------------------------------ is better.
* Macros - As %geminstdir is already defined, use the macro in %files.
* %changelog style - When using Fedora CVS system, it is convenient when you put one line between each %changelog entry (for "make clog", for example), like ------------------------------------------------------------ %changelog * Wed Dec 02 2009 Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com - 2.2.15-1 - Update to new upstream release
* Wed Dec 02 2009 Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com - 2.2.14-1 - Initial package -------------------------------------------------------------
By the way it is appreciated if you post the full URL of the new spec/srpm.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #4 from Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com 2009-12-04 11:31:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
- %define -> %global
- Now Fedora prefers to use %global over %define.
Fixed.
- License
- test/haml/spec/README.md is under WTFPL so the license tag should be "MIT and WTFPL".
Fixed.
- Requires
- Please add the needed rubygem related dependency. Note that I don't know if this dependency is optional or not.
/usr/bin/html2haml requires it, so i think it's not optional. Added.
Also please check other dependency (if any).
I checked all files for requires, and other possible external tools:
1. extra/haml-mode.el and extra/sass-mode.el are emacs highlighting files; not sure what to do with these.
2. extra/update_watch.rb requires sinatra and json, but this file seems only useful to haml developers, i think, so i'd like to remove it.
3. lib/haml/filters.rb: this depends on rubygem-RedCloth for Textile filter, but Markdown and Maruku filters doesn't have packaged dependencies in fedora (afaict). The code in filters.rb can handle it though, and these filters are not a requirement to use haml. What do you suggest ?
4. Rakefile has many dependencies (tlsmail, yard, rcov/rcovtask, ruby-prof, "git" command...) and i'm not sure how useful it is. The only thing i'd like to keep is the 'test' task.
5. test/benchmark has more requires (erubis, markaby, rbench - i didn't find this packaged)
7. test/haml/spec/lua_haml_spec.lua - requires lua 8. test/haml/spec/ruby_haml_test.rb - requires json; doesn't work currently, but i have a patch to make this work
6. test/sass/plugin_test.rb has require merb, but it will skip the test if no merb is found.
- %check - Whether adding executable permission to a script or not should be determined (for this case) by checking if the script has shebang or not, and should not be determined by hardcoded file list.
Not all files from *_test.rb have shebang (Though i could create a patch for this and ask upstream to integrate it)
I think - fixing Rakefile and execute "rake test"
I prefer this one (where by fixing i mean leave only "test" task)
- Macros
- As %geminstdir is already defined, use the macro in %files.
Fixed.
- %changelog style
Fixed.
By the way it is appreciated if you post the full URL of the new spec/srpm.
Sure. SRPM: http://mogurakun.web.runbox.net/rubygem-haml-2.2.15-2.fc12.src.rpm Spec: http://mogurakun.web.runbox.net/rubygem-haml.spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-07 10:18:59 EDT --- For -2:
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
- Requires
- Please add the needed rubygem related dependency. Note that I don't know if this dependency is optional or not.
- lib/haml/filters.rb: this depends on rubygem-RedCloth for Textile filter,
but Markdown and Maruku filters doesn't have packaged dependencies in fedora (afaict). The code in filters.rb can handle it though, and these filters are not a requirement to use haml. What do you suggest ?
- It seems filters related dependency is optional, so I don't think adding "R: rubygem(RedCloth)" is strictly needed.
- Rakefile has many dependencies (tlsmail, yard, rcov/rcovtask, ruby-prof,
"git" command...) and i'm not sure how useful it is. The only thing i'd like to keep is the 'test' task.
- We usually don't add dependency for Rakefile based dependency ( By the way I like to create -doc subpackage for rubygem based rpm and I usually put Rakefile to -doc, not to main package )
- %check - Whether adding executable permission to a script or not should be determined (for this case) by checking if the script has shebang or not, and should not be determined by hardcoded file list.
Not all files from *_test.rb have shebang (Though i could create a patch for this and ask upstream to integrate it)
- But with your current rpm only ruby script with shebang have executable permission (and not all *_test.rb have shebang) anyway, so judging by my method should be possible. ( By the way if scripts without shebang have executable permission, or if scripts with shebang don't have exectable permission, rpmlint warns about this ).
The reason I am talking about this is that I think hardcoding %test_files list should be avoided unless impossible.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #6 from Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com 2009-12-09 13:14:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
- It seems filters related dependency is optional, so I don't think adding "R: rubygem(RedCloth)" is strictly needed.
OK.
- Rakefile has many dependencies (tlsmail, yard, rcov/rcovtask, ruby-prof,
"git" command...) and i'm not sure how useful it is. The only thing i'd like to keep is the 'test' task.
- We usually don't add dependency for Rakefile based dependency ( By the way I like to create -doc subpackage for rubygem based rpm and I usually put Rakefile to -doc, not to main package )
The problem is, i can't even do "rake test" because loading of rakefile fails on dependencies.
- But with your current rpm only ruby script with shebang have executable permission (and not all *_test.rb have shebang) anyway, so judging by my method should be possible.
In my current rpm, only two of 10 test files miss shebang line, in %install i add it to those two, and then set all 10 to +x with chmod.
( By the way if scripts without shebang have executable permission, or if scripts with shebang don't have exectable permission, rpmlint warns about this ).
I know. That's why i do all this :)
The reason I am talking about this is that I think hardcoding %test_files list should be avoided unless impossible.
It's not impossible, but i'd have to: 1. create a patch that adds shebang lines, so all _test.rb have it; and 2. call chmod +x, or specify executable bit with %attr
Do you think this would be OK ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-11 12:45:19 EDT --- Well, then first of all how did you determine the list of %test_files?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #8 from Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com 2009-12-18 08:46:33 EDT --- I asked one of the developers, he said test/*/*_test.rb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-23 10:58:45 EDT --- Well, for now I won't object to use %test_files. So would you modify your spec file if there is something you want to do so and reupload your spec/srpm again?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kanarip@kanarip.com
--- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-31 07:32:14 EDT --- *** Bug 551565 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #11 from Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com 2010-01-05 09:47:28 EDT --- OK, i did some changes: - update to 2.2.16 - got rid of test_files macro in %check (replaced it with solution from comment #3) - replaced test_files in %install with commands from Jeroen van Meeuwen's specfile for rubygem-haml (bug 551565)
http://mogurakun.web.runbox.net/rubygem-haml.spec http://mogurakun.web.runbox.net/rubygem-haml-2.2.16-1.fc12.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-05 12:47:06 EDT --- Well, I have not looked into the newest srpm yet, however at least scratch build fails on rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1903695
Note that rawhide uses rubygem-rack-1.1.0-1.fc13
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |552972
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-06 12:43:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12)
Well, I have not looked into the newest srpm yet, however at least scratch build fails on rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1903695
Note that rawhide uses rubygem-rack-1.1.0-1.fc13
Actually rubygem-actionpack is broken with rack 1.1.0 (bug 552972)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-07 12:29:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13)
Actually rubygem-actionpack is broken with rack 1.1.0 (bug 552972)
I applied a workaround on rawhide actionpack. Now this package itself seems okay, then:
------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored:
This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you.
Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored
Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review)
When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request.
Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on my wiki page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka#B._Review_request_tickets (Check "No one is reviewing")
Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-07 12:49:02 EDT --- (By the way the macro %ruby_sitelib is used nowhere so this macro definition can be removed)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Bug 543549 depends on bug 552972, which changed state.
Bug 552972 Summary: actionpack 2.3.4 broken with rack 1.1.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552972
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(mbabej@redhat.com | |)
--- Comment #16 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-21 12:21:56 EST --- ping?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #17 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-28 10:36:11 EST --- ping again?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(mbabej@redhat.com | |) |
--- Comment #18 from Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com 2010-01-28 11:44:29 EST --- Hello,
sorry for late response. What deadline are we aiming for ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #19 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-28 12:00:18 EST --- Not a dealine issue, however usually if no response from the submitter is received within one month + one week, the bug is closed as NOTABUG so that other person can take over the submitted package.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(mbabej@redhat.com | |)
--- Comment #20 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-09 01:07:09 EST --- ping again?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mmorsi@redhat.com
--- Comment #21 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-09 01:07:32 EST --- *** Bug 562998 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #22 from Mohammed Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com 2010-02-09 10:43:18 EST --- Hey, I can help out w/ reviewing / submitting this package but can we update it to the most recent version 2.2.19
http://gemcutter.org/gems/haml
I ask because apparently there are new haml dependencies which are not reflected in the current rpm spec, and are needed by haml for features needed in other software.
Specifically the yard and markuku (which in return depends on syntax) gem dependencies have been added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562997 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562993 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504470
Haml >= 2,2,19 is needed for the latest release of compass https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563000
If you need any assistance shout our or check my spec (in the closed / duplicate bug) where I have all the deps and build setup.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(mbabej@redhat.com | |) |
--- Comment #23 from Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com 2010-02-09 14:02:11 EST --- Hi,
I ask because apparently there are new haml dependencies which are not reflected in the current rpm spec, and are needed by haml for features needed in other software.
Yard and maruku are not new deps; I intentionally left them out, since those were build dependencies (that is, if you want to build the gem out of git tree), and i didn't want to introduce unnecessary deps.
I'll ask upstream, but afaik they still aren't a runtime (or rpm build time) dependency.
I know there's new haml; i'll be updating it shortly.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #24 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2010-02-11 08:47:40 EST --- It seems the patch supplied to the sass engine test is not needed anymore.
I used: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-haml.spec / http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f12/SRPMS/rubygem-haml-2.2.19-1.fc12.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Bug 543549 depends on bug 552972, which changed state.
Bug 552972 Summary: actionpack 2.3.4 broken with rack 1.1.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552972
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|RAWHIDE |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(mbabej@redhat.com | |)
--- Comment #25 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-27 10:22:00 EST --- Michal, ping? (Just to be sure that I am also waiting for your another review request or your pre-review of other person's review request for sponsorship issue)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Michal Fojtik mfojtik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mfojtik@redhat.com
--- Comment #26 from Michal Fojtik mfojtik@redhat.com 2010-03-04 07:19:23 EST --- Mamoru, Michal, any progress with this gem ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(mbabej@redhat.com | |)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(mbabej@redhat.com | |), | |needinfo?(mbabej@redhat.com | |) |
--- Comment #27 from Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com 2010-03-04 11:01:53 EST --- Hi,
2.2.20 packaged is here:
http://mogurakun.web.runbox.net/rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc13.noarch.rpm http://mogurakun.web.runbox.net/rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc13.src.rpm http://mogurakun.web.runbox.net/rubygem-haml.spec
Note 1: doesn't build on F12 (rails + rack 1.1.0) Note 2: removed patch to sass engine test
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #28 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-03-04 13:13:04 EST --- Well, your srpm itself seems good now. So as I wrote in my comment 14 and comment 25, now I am waiting for your another review request submission (submitting another gem-based rpm may be simper), or your pre-review of other person's review request.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #29 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-03-04 13:20:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #27)
Note 1: doesn't build on F12 (rails + rack 1.1.0)
Being tracked on bug 552972. Would you (and also people watching this bug) comment on the bug? If we can hear consent from more people to downgrade rack on F-12 to 1.0.0, we can fix so more quickly.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Bug 543549 depends on bug 552972, which changed state.
Bug 552972 Summary: actionpack 2.3.4 broken with rack 1.1.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552972
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |ERRATA
--- Comment #30 from Michal Fojtik mfojtik@redhat.com 2010-03-12 03:41:53 EST --- It seems like Rack was recently downgraded to 1.0.0, which means this package should be build fine in Koji now (F-12).
If Michal would confirm this, I'm not seeing any issue which could prevent giving a fedora-review+ flag here.
Also, this package is blocking couple of things (and is attractive for users as well). So instead of waiting for Michal's reviews I could take CVS import of this package if Michal agreed.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #31 from Michal Babej mbabej@redhat.com 2010-03-12 03:51:55 EST --- Sure, go ahead.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #32 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-03-12 04:24:41 EST --- If Michal Fojtik is going to be the maintainer of this package, I can approve this package (F-14/13/12 rebuild passed)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #33 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-03-13 00:15:22 EST --- So would you want to be the maintainer of rubygem-haml, Michal Fojtik?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Matthew Kent mkent@magoazul.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mkent@magoazul.com
--- Comment #34 from Matthew Kent mkent@magoazul.com 2010-03-16 15:06:16 EDT --- I'm willing to help with maintenance as I need this dependency for another app.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #35 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-03-17 02:41:13 EDT --- So who is really going to be the maintainer for this package? Michal Fojtik, would you agree with that Matthew will be the owner for this package?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #36 from Michal Fojtik mfojtik@redhat.com 2010-03-18 08:53:59 EDT --- I'm sorry, I was gone for couple of days. I agree, Matthew could be maintainer.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #37 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-03-18 09:05:35 EDT --- Thank you for replying. Now I approve this.
------------------------------------------------------------ This package (rubygem-haml) is APPROVED by mtasaka ------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Matthew Kent mkent@magoazul.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #38 from Matthew Kent mkent@magoazul.com 2010-03-18 16:50:46 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-haml Short Description: XHTML/XML templating engine Owners: mkent Branches: F-11 F-12 F-13 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #39 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-03-19 15:40:14 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-27 19:05:54 EDT --- rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc11
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-27 19:07:23 EDT --- rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc12
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-27 19:08:28 EDT --- rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc13
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #43 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-03-28 11:57:04 EDT --- Closing.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-29 22:16:38 EDT --- rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc11 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-29 22:21:30 EDT --- rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc11 |rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc12
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-04-08 23:56:47 EDT --- rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc12 |rubygem-haml-2.2.20-1.fc13
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
Michael Stahnke mastahnke@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mastahnke@gmail.com Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #47 from Michael Stahnke mastahnke@gmail.com 2010-09-10 14:31:13 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: rubygem-haml New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: stahnma
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #48 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-09-10 14:41:22 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549
--- Comment #49 from Michal Fojtik mfojtik@redhat.com 2011-07-15 09:58:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #47)
Package Change Request
Package Name: rubygem-haml New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: stahnma
Can you please import this gem into EPEL6?
Error: No Package found for rubygem(haml)
Thanks!
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla