[Bug 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Mar 6 15:48:38 UTC 2012


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=782560

--- Comment #19 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> 2012-03-06 10:48:37 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Hi Vit,
> 
> Sure, we can move the macros into the %if %{?rhel} section -- though they don't
> get defined if they exist, so they don't hurt anything where they are.  At the
> time I worked on this, I don't believe that all Fedora systems had the updated
> rubygems-devel.

Yes, I know they don't hurt, but may confuse. At the end, you never know where
the value of the macro is coming from.

> The ruby-shadow subpackage is highly desirable so that folks who were ensuring
> it was installed in puppet manifests, kickstarts, etc, are able to easily
> update their systems.  This is important to EPEL if we ever hope to push this
> newer gem packaging there.

Hmm, the Obsoletes/Provides are not enough? I am not familiar with Puppet.

> I've been holding off while the ruby guidelines are hashed out on the packaging
> list.  There is a bit of debate on the draft and the gem unpack/repack bits. 

I understand. On the other hand, we rebuild all other stuff by the proposed
draft, so one package which might become wrong doesn't hurt that much. Finished
review would save us from nagging by broken ruby-shadow.

> That and I've been on vacation for a week or so and haven't spent much time on
> packaging. :)

Glad you are relaxed now ;) Yes, I am going for vacation next three weeks,
that's why I'm trying to put things into order.

The rest is OT here, arguments were/can be made on the packaging list.

> FWIW, I am in favor of the unpack/repack if only to make rpmbuild -bp work as
> it does in other software.  I don't like the idea of not having anything done
> in %prep nor do I like calling gem install in %prep.  That gems are designed to
> work this way is a defect in gem in my opinion.  Whether that extra work turns
> off some ruby people that might otherwise become Fedora packagers isn't a
> concern to me.  I'd rather attract packagers who understand why we have these
> things in separate steps. I'll keep my eye on the packaging list for the
> results of this discussion.

-- 
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