[Bug 207472] New: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472
Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dlutter@redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-activesupport.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-activesupport-1.3.1-1.src.rp... Description: Utility classes and extension to the standard library that were required by Rails, but found of general use.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472
------- Additional Comments From dlutter@redhat.com 2006-09-21 06:59 EST ------- Output from rpmlint:
E: ruby-activesupport non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/active_support/vendor/builder/xmlbase.rb 0644 E: ruby-activesupport non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/active_support/vendor/builder/blankslate.rb 0644 E: ruby-activesupport non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/active_support/vendor/builder/xmlmarkup.rb 0644 E: ruby-activesupport non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/active_support/vendor/builder/xmlevents.rb 0644 E: ruby-activesupport non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/active_support/vendor/builder.rb 0644
While these files all start with #!/usr/bin/ruby, they are mainly used as a library, and included by the toplevel active_support.rb, so I think this warning should be ignored
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472
dlutter@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |207473
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn|207473 | OtherBugsDependingO| |207473 nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tibbs@math.uh.edu OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-10-04 00:19 EST ------- One additional rpmlint issue:
W: ruby-activesupport unversioned-explicit-provides ruby(active_support)
I wonder if this provide shouldn't be versioned. (I know the guidelines don't say so, but perhaps we missed something when we wrote them.)
As for the non-executable-script "error", this often happens in Python packages. There, the standard that we have used for deciding whether the complaint is bogus or not is whether the file has any code that would be executed if you did pass it through the interpreter. If the file has only class and function definitions, it needs to have the shebang line removed. It seems that these five files fall into the latter category. However, we're basically making up some of the rules for Ruby as we go along, so we should probably talk about it a bit. Personally I don't understand why the shebang lines are there, but I can't imagine that it hurts anything. It's a comment, nothing more.
Review: * source files match upstream: 4e3fce3bb07e1f66e6f40406291e3266 activesupport-1.3.1.tgz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package (in lib/active_support.rb) * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly X rpmlint is silent. ? final provides and requires are sane: ? ruby(active_support) ruby-activesupport = 1.3.1-1.fc6 = ruby(abi) = 1.8 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472
------- Additional Comments From dlutter@redhat.com 2006-10-06 09:37 EST ------- Seems like I need to install a newer version of rpmlint ;)
Not versioning the ruby(LIB) provides is definitely an oversight; we should just version it with %version, most ruby packages seem to follow an extremely sane versioning scheme. I added a corresponding blurb to the packaging Todo.
I'll change the provides to 'ruby(active_support) = 1.3.1' and add a comment when I have a new spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-10-29 01:01 EST ------- Were you going to send along a new version?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472
------- Additional Comments From dlutter@redhat.com 2006-11-06 19:15 EST ------- Sorry, that somehow slipped through the cracks; thanks for reminding me.
- Updated the spec file with a versioned provides for ruby(active_support):
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-activesupport.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-activesupport-1.3.1-2.src.rp...
- For the shebang lines, I haven't chanegd anything; I can't see any harm with that, either, especially since those files are not executable (and shouldn't be)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-11-12 01:13 EST ------- Sorry for taking so long to get back; I'm just getting back up to speed.
I admit to not understanding fully why rpmlint complains so stridently about files with shebang lines that aren't executable. I can understanding a warning so that you double check that you haven't installed a script and forgotten to make it executable, but these aren't supposed to be executable, and patching them out just seems like needless specfile complexity and diversion from upstream for absolutely no gain.
In the past such things have been fixed up by the packager, but I've never felt good about that and frankly I'm ready to stop asking folks to change it. I don't think it's ever been considered an absolute blocker in any case.
The changes yoou made look good to me, and the package builds fine.
APPROVED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-11-13 01:09 EST ------- I believe that while reviewing ruby-activerecord I've found that this package needs a runtime dependency on ruby-irb, or else inclusion of breakpoint.rb fails.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472
dlutter@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From dlutter@redhat.com 2006-11-13 22:44 EST ------- Thanks for the review. Nice catch with the irb dependency, I added it to the specfile (though it kinda irks me that that is needed for essentially a dev tool, but I don't feel that separating that into another package is really worth it)
Imported and built.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla