Update status on isitifedoraruby

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 9.7.2014 10:44, Achilleas Pipinellis napsal(a):
> On 07/09/2014 11:00 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 8.7.2014 20:00, Achilleas Pipinellis napsal(a):
>>> Hey there, I thought some of you might want to check how the refactoring
>>> of isitfedoraruby goes. Here's a short changelog for the previous month.
>>>
>> Nice work! Just wondering, is there some notification about errors? For
>> example this link [1] gives me Error 500. Should I bother with reporting
>> it or are you already notified at your email, that something went wrong
>> and you are already working on fix? ;)
>>
>>
>> [1] http://fedoraruby.axilleas.me/rubygems?direction=asc&sort=downloads
> Well there is not setup a notification system (yet :p), but I can see
> the logs.
Well, who reads logs? :)

> Now, the particular bug you bumped into, is actually one that
> I have in mind fixing. See
> https://github.com/axilleas/isitfedoraruby/issues/30

Thanks.

>
> Actually if you sort them by desc and then go to the last page the issue
> doesn't occur. Will have to investigate more but my guess is because the
> downloads column is nil.
>
> Also, you might see that some rpms are missing information (bugs/builds,
> etc). That's because the import mechanism might encounter some network
> issues so the specific packages are skipped. That's on the todo list in
> refining the rake tasks. A big enhancement would be to base on fedmsg
> and update on the fly anytime a change is spotted. I have added it as an
> issue [0], though I can't give any hopes this will be implemented any
> time soon :/
>
> Some other thing I missed to report.

Ah, I have not noticed this yet :)

>   Now with the new guidelines and the
> no need of Requires, packages that have adopted this new behavior show
> that have no dependencies. This info is now scrapped from the cgit spec
> file, and unfortunately there is no other way (at least for now) to know
> what the deps are. I have opened an issue at pkgwat [1] but this is
> blocked due to a bug maybe of the server api [2].
>
> Another option would be to extract the information from rubygems.org,
> would that suffice?

No, I don't think this is good idea. There might be some additional 
requires or some requires filtered out for some reasons. Actually, this 
would be also interesting to compare our requirement vs the upstream 
requirements ;)


Vít

>
>
> [0] https://github.com/axilleas/isitfedoraruby/issues/41
> [1] https://github.com/daviddavis/pkgwat/issues/23
> [2] https://github.com/fedora-infra/pkgwat.api/issues/22
>