[Bug 541491] Review Request: rubygem-ruby_parser - A ruby parser written in pure ruby
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Nov 30 06:51:50 UTC 2009
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=541491
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Kent <mkent at magoazul.com> 2009-11-30 01:51:49 EDT ---
Thank you for the review.
(In reply to comment #1)
> Some notes:
>
> * Explicit version dependency
> - ">= 3.0" on Requires: rubygem(sexp_processor) is redundant
> because all rubygem-sexp_processor shipped on Fedora satisfies
> this version dependency:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
>
Noted, thanks.
> * %check
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 16 # These test cases are carried in the ParseTree gem in test/. Carry
> them here
> 17 # rather than attempting to install ParseTree-doc in check and
> introducing a circular
> 18 # dependency
> 19 Source1: pt_testcase.rb
> 79 %check
> 80 pushd .%{geminstdir}
> 81 cp %{SOURCE1} test/
> 82 rake test
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> - IMO if this script is really needed for "rake test" (and actually
> it seems so), this script should also be included in the rebuilt
> binary rpm (i.e. better to move the lines 80-81 to %build).
>
Good idea.
> ? Dependency loop
> - lib/gauntlet_rubyparser.rb contains:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 8 require 'rubygems'
> 9 require 'ruby2ruby'
> 10 require 'ruby_parser'
> 11
> 12 require 'gauntlet'
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> i.e. this script needs two other gems: "ruby2ruby" "gauntlet"
> - The formar one causes dependency loop
> - The latter one is not found on Fedora (even on review request)
> Can this dependency (rather, this script) be ignored?
Ah you noticed this as well, I should have added some notes inline.
I chose to ignore it's dependencies as the developer didn't add it as either a
primary or development dependency in the Rakefile. It's also not a library as
far as I can tell, more of a script used in testing, and not included/invoked
in any of the unit testing.
Plus looking at the gauntlet gem itself it's clearly geared toward library
development rather than providing functionality to a library.
What's the correct approach here, %exclude the script? Add a note about it and
leave dependencies as is?
Will go on the assumption you'd rather it be excluded.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list