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-mail - A Really Ruby Mail Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665560
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-mail - A Really Ruby Mail Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: minnikhanov@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.13-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Hi. I just finished packaging up rubygem-mail, and I would appreciate a review so that I can get it into Fedora Extras.
https://rubygems.org/gems/mail - A Really Ruby Mail Library.
Packed for "rails 3.0.x in F15" in "Ruby SIG mailing list" http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2010-December/000376.html
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=665560
Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |minnikhanov@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2010-12-24 13:18:26 EST --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2688270 koji scratch build successful.
1st Review Request (Bug #661436): rubygem-heroku - deploy apps to Heroku .
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=665560
--- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-12-27 11:49:59 EST --- I guess currently you also cannot install the binary rpm rebuilt from your srpm because of the dependency on rubygem-treetop (requested >= 1.4.8, the latest treetop on Fedora is 1.3.0).
Would you check if treetop version >= 1.4.8 is really needed? If not, (for now) please modify spec file and installed gemspec file so that rubygem-mail binary rpm can be installed.
Other points looks okay from the first glance.
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=665560
--- Comment #3 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2010-12-29 15:24:03 EST --- I create mail-2.2.13.1.gem from source, reduce dependence for treetop >= 1.3.0 Install rubygem-treetop-1.3.0.rpm by yum. Test failed.
[dvl@lhost mail]$ spec spec/ Running Specs under Ruby Version 1.8.7 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/ruby_builder.rb:15:in `<<': undefined method `tabto' for "module RFC2822Obsolete":String (NoMethodError) from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/ruby_builder.rb:35:in `module_declaration' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/node_classes/grammar.rb:7:in `compile' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/metagrammar.rb:260:in `compile' .....
History mail.gem: # 2.2.1 May 12, 2010 # 2.2.0 April 10, 2010 # 2.1.5.3 March 28, 2010 # 2.1.5.2 March 27, 2010 # 2.1.5.1 March 27, 2010 # 2.1.5 March 27, 2010 # 2.1.3 February 21, 2010
mail.gem had't on the dependencies rubygem-treetop till ver. 2.1.5.2 March 27, 2010.
History treetop.gem: # 1.4.9 November 15, 2010 # 1.4.8 May 30, 2010 # 1.4.7 May 27, 2010 # 1.4.5 March 28, 2010 # 1.4.4 February 19, 2010 # 1.4.3 December 7, 2009 # 1.4.2 September 10, 2009 # 1.4.1 September 3, 2009 ***** # 1.3.0 July 21, 2009 ***** old chap :-) my grand dad ran with it :-D # 1.2.6 June 13, 2009
Solution: 1. May be possible up packed version treetop.gem to 1.4.8 . 2. Pack mail-2.1.5.2.gem.
IMHO step 1 would be better.
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=665560
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |667465
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=665560
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2011-01-05 11:54:40 EST --- Sorry for delay. For treetop dependency, I filed bug 667465
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=665560
--- Comment #5 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2011-01-13 12:51:13 EST --- Upstream release - 2.2.14 January 4, 2011 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-1.fc14.src.rpm
koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2719362
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=665560
Mohammed Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mmorsi@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mmorsi@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Mohammed Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com 2011-01-18 22:37:41 EST --- I updated the treetop rpm to 1.4.9 and will push it to rawhide soon. Going off this srpm
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-treetop-1.4.9-1.fc14.src.rpm
* rpmlint, koji look good
* passes review guidelines (would be good to get a separate LICENSE file from upstream, but is not required)
* you can also download the spec suite from the upstream project and run it in a %check section if you want
Overall looks good, will approve once treetop 1.4.9 is in 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=665560
--- Comment #7 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2011-01-22 15:49:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-2.fc14.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-2.fc14.src.rpm
Don't make 'rubygem-mail.spec' for reason koji scratch build: FAIL http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2737227
(Now http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail.spec this is 'rubygem-mail-2.2.14-1.fc14.spec' without %check section)
- passes review guidelines (would be good to get a separate LICENSE file from
upstream, but is not required)
+ This fixed. There isn't LICENSE file at upstream. There is the LICENSE section in README file. I separate LICENSE file from the LICENSE section in README file in %prep section.
- you can also download the spec suite from the upstream project and run it in
a %check section if you want
- not fixed yet. Prepare spec suite from the upstream to tarball. For spec suite need rubygem-bundler - it not packed yet (#646836). I add %check section. No success yet - koji scratch build: FAIL.
build.log: error: line 42: Unknown tag: BuildRequires(check): rubygem(rake)
Why 'Unknown tag:'? It is not clear for me.
Solutions: 1. Comment %check section. Search solution later. 2. I need help. Direct me to right way, please.
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=665560
Bug 665560 depends on bug 667465, which changed state.
Bug 667465 Summary: [RFE] Upgrade to 0.14.8 or above https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=667465
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED
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=665560
--- Comment #8 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2011-01-23 14:11:51 EST --- 'BuildRequires:' correct wrong tag 'BuildRequires(check):'. 'BuildRequires(check):' wrong tag by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-3.fc14.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-3.fc14.src.rpm
Don't make 'rubygem-mail.spec' for reason koji scratch build: FAIL http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2738013
DEBUG backend.py:745: /usr/bin/yum-builddep --installroot /var/lib/mock/dist-f15-build-964293-145162/root/ '/var/lib/mock/dist-f15-build-964293-145162/root///builddir/build/SRPMS/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-3.fc15.src.rpm' DEBUG util.py:281: Executing command: /usr/bin/yum-builddep --installroot /var/lib/mock/dist-f15-build-964293-145162/root/ '/var/lib/mock/dist-f15-build-964293-145162/root///builddir/build/SRPMS/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-3.fc15.src.rpm' DEBUG util.py:247: Getting requirements for rubygem-mail-2.2.14-3.fc15.src DEBUG util.py:247: --> rubygems-1.3.7-2.fc14.noarch DEBUG util.py:247: --> ruby-libs-1.8.7.330-2.fc15.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:247: --> rubygem-rake-0.8.7-2.fc12.noarch DEBUG util.py:247: Error: No Package found for rubygem(bundler) DEBUG util.py:320: Child returncode was: 1 <<<
Now the problem - For spec suite must be packed rubygem-bundler (it not packed yet #646836).
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=665560
Mohammed Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |646836
--- Comment #9 from Mohammed Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com 2011-01-23 15:35:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6) Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-2.fc14.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-2.fc14.src.rpm
Don't make 'rubygem-mail.spec' for reason koji scratch build: FAIL http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2737227
(Now http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail.spec this is 'rubygem-mail-2.2.14-1.fc14.spec' without %check section)
This is weird. I'm seeing this also, and not sure what the cause is. It seems to only occur when the build target is dist-rawhide, for example I just rebuilt the jnr-netdb package against dist-rawhide (which failed) and dist-f14 (which succeeded)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2738420 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2738431
I'm not sure if moving the BuildRequies(check) to BuildRequires is the right solution (anyone care to comment on this? mamoru?), but can't find anything in the package guidelines pertaining to BuildRequires(check), so unless there are any contrary opinions/solutions, I'm fine with that fix.
- passes review guidelines (would be good to get a separate LICENSE file from
upstream, but is not required)
- This fixed.
There isn't LICENSE file at upstream. There is the LICENSE section in README file. I separate LICENSE file from the LICENSE section in README file in %prep section.
This is not what I meant. I merely was suggesting you contact upstream to include the separate LICENSE file as directed here
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Since this is a SHOULD it isn't a blocker for the package being accepted.
The fix you added though doesn't seem to work though, at least not for me locally. When I run rpmbuild I get the following error
+ csplit ./usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.14/README.rdoc '/== License:/' 17683 1087 + /bin/mv -f ./usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.14/xx00 ./usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.14/README.rdoc /bin/mv: cannot stat `./usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.14/xx00': No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.fiDfF8 (%prep)
This entire bit of extracting the LICENSE out of the readme can probably be removed all together.
- you can also download the spec suite from the upstream project and run it in
a %check section if you want
- not fixed yet.
Prepare spec suite from the upstream to tarball. For spec suite need rubygem-bundler - it not packed yet (#646836). I add %check section. No success yet - koji scratch build: FAIL.
So thanks for doing this.. In addition to bundler the gemspec references several other gems which need to be installed for the spec suite to work. treetop is needed, and was just pushed to rawhide, as well as activesupport, mime-types, i18n, ZenTest, rcov, rspec, diff-lcs, ruby-debug (all of which are in Fedora).
Please add these all as BuildRequires dependencies. You will also need to pull https://github.com/mikel/mail/raw/master/Gemfile as a rpm source and add it and Gemfile.lock to the %files section.
Additionally the ZenTest dep is too high in the Gemfile, but I've verified that the mail test suite works against the ZenTest version in fedora. You can downgrade it with the following patch
$ cat mail-downgrade-gemfile-deps.patch --- Gemfile.orig 2011-01-23 14:25:06.328793651 -0500 +++ Gemfile 2011-01-23 14:28:17.529793736 -0500 @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ gem "treetop", "~> 1.4.8" gem "i18n", ">= 0.4.0"
group :test do - gem "ZenTest", "~> 4.4.0" + gem "ZenTest", ">= 4.3.1" gem "rcov", "~> 0.9.8" gem "rake", "~> 0.8.7" gem "bundler"
build.log: error: line 42: Unknown tag: BuildRequires(check): rubygem(rake)
Why 'Unknown tag:'? It is not clear for me.
Solutions:
- Comment %check section. Search solution later.
- I need help. Direct me to right way, please.
Again I'm not sure whats causing this, and am fine w/ the BuildRequires(check) -> BuildRequires workaround unless there is a better solution. Once the other BuildRequires dependencies listed above are added to the spec and bundler and treetop are installed locally, 'rake spec' in the check section successfully runs.
treetop was just pushed to Fedora rawhide. bundler was blocked on thor which has been updated in rawhide, so that should also be coming soon.
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=665560
--- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2011-01-24 01:58:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #9)
build.log: error: line 42: Unknown tag: BuildRequires(check): rubygem(rake)
Why 'Unknown tag:'? It is not clear for me.
Solutions:
- Comment %check section. Search solution later.
- I need help. Direct me to right way, please.
Again I'm not sure whats causing this, and am fine w/ the BuildRequires(check) -> BuildRequires workaround unless there is a better solution.
Well, with rawhide rpm (4.9.0) BuildRequires(foo) will always cause error: http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0 "Unknown dependency qualifiers are now always treated as errors and abort build" http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-November/146378.html
So please just use BuildRequires: instead of BuildRequires(check). I will also change this next time I build packages which uses BuildRequires(check).
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=665560
--- Comment #11 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2011-01-24 08:56:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
- passes review guidelines (would be good to get a separate LICENSE file from
upstream, but is not required)
This is not what I meant. I merely was suggesting you contact upstream to include the separate LICENSE file as directed here
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Since this is a SHOULD it isn't a blocker for the package being accepted.
Publish issue at upstream https://github.com/mikel/mail/issues#issue/190
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=665560
--- Comment #12 from Mohammed Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com 2011-01-24 16:07:50 EST --- OK in this case please,
* remove the bits splitting the LICENSE out of the README and
* add the missing BuildRequires dependencies to the spec (you will need to pull the upstream Gemfile and downgrade the ZenTest dependency there)
After these two I will approve. Thanks.
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=665560
--- Comment #13 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2011-01-26 12:01:34 EST --- Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-4.fc14.src.rpm
koji scratch build: FAIL http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2742950 'bundler' is not in rawhide - will wait.
(In reply to comment #12)
OK in this case please,
- remove the bits splitting the LICENSE out of the README and
+ Fixed
- add the missing BuildRequires dependencies to the spec (you will need to pull
the upstream Gemfile and downgrade the ZenTest dependency there)
+ Fixed
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=665560
--- Comment #14 from Mohammed Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com 2011-01-26 14:35:11 EST --- Everything looks good with the latest spec except for a couple of things
* Could you put the BuildRequires you just added onto separate lines. A style things yes, and not a blocker, but still I feel it makes it more legible
* Why did you add the sections in %prep to "fix anything executable that doesn't have a shebang" and "find files with a shebang that don't have executable permissions". Looking at the gem there are no executable files nor files that should be so I'm not sure what these blocks are trying to accomplish
* rpmlint complains about a missing %clean section, could you please add it, even if it is empty
* building the rpm results in an error stating the LICENSE.rdoc file cannot be found. Where are you getting this? If no such file exists could you please remove it from the %files section
* additionally building the rpm outputs that the Gemfile.lock file is not listed in %files. Furthermore the Gemfile is listed as a file in the doc subpackage, which is incorrect as its needed by the mail runtime. Please put both Gemfile and Gemfile.lock in the main package %files section (not marked as %doc either)
Thank you
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=665560
--- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2011-01-26 14:43:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #14)
- rpmlint complains about a missing %clean section, could you please add it,
even if it is empty
%clean section is no longer needed (on Fedora): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
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=665560
--- Comment #16 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2011-01-27 12:18:56 EST --- Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-5.fc14.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #14)
- Could you put the BuildRequires you just added onto separate lines. A style
things yes, and not a blocker, but still I feel it makes it more legible
+ Fixed. (I saw like that anywhere, nothing else)
- Why did you add the sections in %prep to "fix anything executable that
doesn't have a shebang" and "find files with a shebang that don't have executable permissions". Looking at the gem there are no executable files nor files that should be so I'm not sure what these blocks are trying to accomplish
+ Fixed. Remove these.
- rpmlint complains about a missing %clean section, could you please add it,
even if it is empty
- Not need by Comment 15.
- building the rpm results in an error stating the LICENSE.rdoc file cannot be
found. Where are you getting this? If no such file exists could you please remove it from the %files section
+ Fixed. (sorry)
- additionally building the rpm outputs that the Gemfile.lock file is not
listed in %files. Furthermore the Gemfile is listed as a file in the doc subpackage, which is incorrect as its needed by the mail runtime. Please put both Gemfile and Gemfile.lock in the main package %files section (not marked as %doc either)
+ Fixed. There is not 'Gemfile.lock' in upstream - create this file by 'touch' in %prep. Is this right?
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=665560
--- Comment #17 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2011-01-29 14:46:34 EST --- Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-1.fc14.src.rpm
Updated to latest upstream release (v.2.2.15 25/01/2011)
Spec(previous) URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-5.fc14.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=665560
Mohammed Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Mohammed Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com 2011-01-31 12:53:04 EST ---
There is not 'Gemfile.lock' in upstream - create this file by 'touch' in %prep. Is this right?
No, this file gets created during the build. Please remove this.
(In reply to comment #17)
Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-1.fc14.src.rpm
Updated to latest upstream release (v.2.2.15 25/01/2011)
Spec(previous) URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-5.fc14.spec
Once the touch 'Gemfile.lock' is removed, everything looks go. The package depends on bundler (BZ #646836), which has been approved but not pushed yet. The package builds fine in mock though with the bundler rpm preinstalled.
APPROVED.
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=665560
--- Comment #19 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2011-01-31 14:01:21 EST --- Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-2.fc14.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #18)
There is not 'Gemfile.lock' in upstream - create this file by 'touch' in %prep. Is this right?
No, this file gets created during the build. Please remove this.
+ Fixed.
Once the touch 'Gemfile.lock' is removed, everything looks go. The package depends on bundler (BZ #646836), which has been approved but not pushed yet. The package builds fine in mock though with the bundler rpm preinstalled.
APPROVED.
Thanks for review & collaboration.
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=665560
Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #20 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2011-01-31 14:03:38 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-mail Short Description: A Really Ruby Mail Library. Owners: minn Branches: f14 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=665560
Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vondruch@redhat.com
--- Comment #21 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com 2011-02-01 05:57:15 EST --- Bundler should be already in rawhide. I did not proposed it for F14 though.
However, the Bundler is build dependency which could/should be avoided IMO. Here is way how to achieve it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_talk:Ruby
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=665560
--- Comment #22 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2011-02-01 07:44:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #21)
However, the Bundler is build dependency which could/should be avoided IMO. Here is way how to achieve it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_talk:Ruby
I just wrote the opposite opinion for this on wiki.
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=665560
--- Comment #23 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2011-02-01 10:05:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #21)
Bundler should be already in rawhide. I did not proposed it for F14 though.
However, the Bundler is build dependency which could/should be avoided IMO. Here is way how to achieve it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_talk:Ruby
I mark "Branches: f14" as placeholder. I don't suppose to push & to build for F14. When I made previous "New Package SCM Request" without "Branches:" for 'tzinfo.gem' I have a problem with 'fedpkg' https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619979#c40 . Solution: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619979#c41
Now I decide make "Branches: f14" as placeholder; for reason - hav't any problem with 'fedpkg'.
If possible don't use branch F14 & remove it , I ready.
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=665560
--- Comment #24 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com 2011-02-01 10:47:01 EST --- Great ... than you are probably aware of fedpkg update. I had no issues today pushing Bundler without f14 branch. May be you should give it a try.
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=665560
--- Comment #25 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2011-02-01 13:30:46 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-mail Short Description: A Really Ruby Mail Library. Owners: minn Branches: 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=665560
--- Comment #26 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2011-02-01 14:25:42 EST --- koji scratch build: FAIL at %check http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2755505
Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1RJLF5 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd rubygem-mail-2.2.15 + unset DISPLAY + pushd /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-2.fc15.noarch/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.15 ~/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-2.fc15.noarch/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.15 ~/build/BUILD/rubygem-mail-2.2.15 + rake spec rake aborted! Bundler couldn't find some gems.Did you run `bundle install`? /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-2.fc15.noarch/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.15/Rakefile:18 (See full trace by running task with --trace) (in /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-2.fc15.noarch/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.15) error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1RJLF5 (%check) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1RJLF5 (%check) Child returncode was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. <<<
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=665560
--- Comment #27 from Mohammed Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com 2011-02-01 19:29:58 EST --- OK my bad. This was because I pushed the update to the treetop rpm but didn't request and official build. Just did that. When it propagates to the rawhide repos you should be able to build mail
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=216551
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=665560
Bug 665560 depends on bug 646836, which changed state.
Bug 646836 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-bundler - Library and utilities to manages a Ruby application's gem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646836
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
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=665560
--- Comment #28 from Mohammed Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com 2011-02-02 11:04:01 EST --- rubygem-mail Koji scratch build on dist-f15 is green:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2757226
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=665560
--- Comment #29 from Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com 2011-02-02 17:33:42 EST --- 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=665560
Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2011-02-04 13:37:17
--- Comment #30 from Minnikhanov minnikhanov@gmail.com 2011-02-04 13:37:17 EST --- Pushed to rawhide. Close.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla