Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895166
Bug ID: 895166 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-zbxapi - Ruby wrapper to the Zabbix API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: fedora@russellharrison.com
Spec URL: http://rharrison.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-zbxapi-0.2.415-3.fc... SRPM URL: http://rharrison.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-zbxapi-0.2.415-3.fc... Description: Provides a straight forward interface to manipulate Zabbix servers using the Zabbix API. Fedora Account System Username: rharrison
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895166
--- Comment #1 from Russell Harrison fedora@russellharrison.com --- There are a few things I wanted to address flagged from my run of fedora-review.
[ ]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rharriso/rpmbuild/review-rubygem-zbxapi/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Upstream doesn't include the license file and I will contact them about including it as well as adding the appropriate headers to the other three files.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
There are no tests for this gem so %check is absent for now.
[!]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %{gem_libdir}
I have included the macros for EPEL 6 support only in order to maintain a common spec file across branches. F17 and greater still use the macros from the rubygem-devel package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895166
Josef Stribny jstribny@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jstribny@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Josef Stribny jstribny@redhat.com --- This won't work in F19, please update it according to the latest packaging guidelines[1].
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895166
--- Comment #3 from Russell Harrison fedora@russellharrison.com --- (In reply to Josef Stribny from comment #2)
This won't work in F19, please update it according to the latest packaging guidelines[1].
Thanks for the reminder. I posted this review before the guidelines were updated. I'll update my package accordingly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895166
Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com
--- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- Hi Russell,
Are you still interested in packaging this? It looks like we'll need a new .spec file for Fedora 19+. Also, upstream has released a new 0.3.0 version. Perhaps it includes the changes that you have in Patch0.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895166
Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@russellharrison.com Flags| |needinfo?(fedora@russellhar | |rison.com)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895166
Russell Harrison rharriso@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC| |rharriso@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Russell Harrison rharriso@redhat.com --- (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #4)
Hi Russell,
Are you still interested in packaging this? It looks like we'll need a new .spec file for Fedora 19+. Also, upstream has released a new 0.3.0 version. Perhaps it includes the changes that you have in Patch0.
I am still interested in packaging this. The main problem is the volatility of the upstream gem. Specifically with reguards to ruby 1.8.x vs. ruby 1.9.x+ patches. I my team has been providing the majority of the patches for the project and I'm basically of waiting for this to stabilize before pursuing this further.
I'm guessing it's going to be in at least the post F20 time frame before we get those issues sorted out with upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895166
Russell Harrison fedora@russellharrison.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|needinfo?(fedora@russellhar | |rison.com) | Last Closed| |2017-04-03 12:16:34
--- Comment #6 from Russell Harrison fedora@russellharrison.com --- I'm going to close this bug as I haven't had time to continue forward with packaging the gem in quite some time.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla