Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-mocha - Mocking and stubbing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459892
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-mocha - Mocking and stubbing library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kanarip@kanarip.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-mocha.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f10/SRPMS/rubygem-mocha-0.9.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Mocking and stubbing library with JMock/SchMock syntax, which allows mocking and stubbing of methods on real (non-mock) classes.
rpmlint is silent
koji scratch builds:
- f8: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=781771 - f9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=781773 - f10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=781775
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=459892
--- Comment #1 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2008-09-08 10:51:39 EDT --- Added ruby(abi) = 1.8 Requires;
New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-mocha.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f10/SRPMS/rubygem-mocha-0.9.0-2.fc10.src.rpm
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=459892
S.A. Hartsuiker sahartsu@xs4all.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |sahartsu@xs4all.nl AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |sahartsu@xs4all.nl Flag| |fedora-review?
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=459892
--- Comment #2 from S.A. Hartsuiker sahartsu@xs4all.nl 2008-10-22 18:09:39 EDT --- RPM Lint: quiet Package name: ok Spec file: ok License: wrong Actual License: Dual license Ruby and MIT %doc License: n/a Spec file language: ok Spec file readable: ok Upstream source vs. used tarball: ok (md5: 214b9e794a3d0b71d63f0d26a500e00e) Compile and Build: - F-8: ok - F-9: ok - F-10: ok - rawhide: ok - EL-5: n/a
Applicable Package Guidelines: ok
Locales: n/a Shared libs: n/a
Relocatable: no Directory and file ownership: ok No duplicate files in %files: ok File Permissions: ok Macro usage: ok Code vs. Content: ok (Large) Documentation: n/a %doc affecting runtime: ok Header files in -devel package: n/a Static Libraries in -static package: n/a pkgconfig Requires: n/a Library files: n/a Devel requires base package: n/a .la libtool archives: n/a Duplicate ownership of files/directories: ok Remove BuildRoot: ok UTF-8 filenames: ok
the MIT-LICENSE file is not marked as %doc The spec file in the above post from Jeroen is not the same as the spec used in building the srpm...
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=459892
--- Comment #3 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2008-10-25 07:17:16 EDT --- Oh, you're right.. the spec file should have been 0.9.0-2...
New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-mocha.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f9/SRPMS/rubygem-mocha-0.9.1-1.fc9.src.rpm
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=459892
--- Comment #4 from S.A. Hartsuiker sahartsu@xs4all.nl 2008-10-25 19:07:14 EDT --- License tag is wrong. I should be Dual license Ruby/MIT %doc tag is fixed
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=459892
--- Comment #5 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2008-10-25 20:12:27 EDT --- New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-mocha.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f9/SRPMS/rubygem-mocha-0.9.1-2.fc9.src.rpm
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=459892
--- Comment #6 from S.A. Hartsuiker sahartsu@xs4all.nl 2008-10-25 20:34:30 EDT --- ok, license also fixed. Package APPROVED.
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=459892
S.A. Hartsuiker sahartsu@xs4all.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
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=459892
Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2008-10-25 20:51:46 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-mocha Short Description: Mocking and stubbing library Owners: kanarip Branches: EL-4 EL-5 F-8 F-9 devel InitialCC:
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=459892
--- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-10-26 13:30:40 EDT --- Why do you create gem by "rake package" instead of using gem file provided by upstream?
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=459892
--- Comment #9 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2008-10-26 13:53:02 EDT --- I prefer using tarballs because they make the %doc available directly as
%doc README etcetera
which are then being put in /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/, rather then putting the docs in some obscure %{geminstdir} (which should hold the program, not the docs) or %{gemdir}/doc/ (which should have RDoc documentation, not READMEs)
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=459892
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin@tummy.com Flag|fedora-review+, fedora-cvs? |fedora-review?
--- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2008-10-29 17:22:21 EDT --- This seems to fail at least:
"The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive; the version of the package must be the Gem's version "
Can you please re-check against: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Gems
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=459892
--- Comment #11 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2008-10-30 05:32:58 EDT --- Revised packaging strategy as far as that is concerned:
New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-mocha.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f9/SRPMS/rubygem-mocha-0.9.1-3.fc9.src.rpm
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=459892
--- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-11-02 02:08:04 EDT --- Well, would you check if all files under %geminstdir are really needed at any time for this package?
IMO the files under %geminstdir/examples, %geminstdir/tests/ (and also these directories themselves) can be marked as %doc. Also %geminstdir/[A-Z]* should be marked as %doc.
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=459892
--- Comment #13 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2009-01-31 20:53:55 EDT --- Marked these files as %doc
New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-mocha.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f10/SRPMS/rubygem-mocha-0.9.1-4.fc10.src.rpm
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=459892
Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|sahartsu@xs4all.nl |nobody@fedoraproject.org
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=459892
Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
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=459892
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |kevin@tummy.com
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=459892
--- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-03-28 21:31:19 EDT --- Oh shoot. I probibly dropped the ball here. Thanks for updating the bug Mamoru.
S.A: Would you like to re-review the package from comment #13? I think my concerns are fixed... if you prefer, I could give it a full review as well.
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=459892
--- Comment #15 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2009-04-04 21:46:10 EDT --- Kevin, I'd appreciate if you take over the review; Stefan isn't going to any time soon I suspect
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=459892
--- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-04-26 22:30:01 EDT --- Sorry for the long delay here.
- 0.9.5 is current now. :)
- There are a bunch of 'warning: File listed twice...' messages, due to listing some files twice in the %files section, can you fix that up?
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=459892
--- Comment #17 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2009-04-27 04:35:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16)
Sorry for the long delay here.
- 0.9.5 is current now. :)
"Fixed" ;-)
- There are a bunch of 'warning: File listed twice...' messages, due to listing
some files twice in the %files section, can you fix that up?
Fixed too.
New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-mocha.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f11/SRPMS/rubygem-mocha-0.9.5-1.fc11.src.rpm
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=459892
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-04-27 12:15:17 EDT --- I see no further blockers here, this package is APPROVED.
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=459892
--- Comment #19 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-05-11 02:36:51 EDT --- Care to request cvs here?
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=459892
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(kanarip@kanarip.c | |om)
--- Comment #20 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-06-14 12:52:10 EDT --- Jeroen, ping?
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=459892
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG Flag|needinfo?(kanarip@kanarip.c | |om) |
--- Comment #21 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-06-23 12:01:18 EDT --- Well, I will once want to close this review request and I want to take over this package. Jeroen, if you want to co-maintain this package, please visit the new review request I will submit.
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=459892
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #22 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-06-23 12:07:41 EDT ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 507649 ***
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=459892
Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|DUPLICATE | Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #23 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2009-06-24 08:55:52 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-mocha Short Description: Mocking and stubbing library Owners: kanarip Branches: EL-4 EL-5 F-10 F-11 devel InitialCC:
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=459892
--- Comment #24 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2009-06-24 08:56:02 EDT --- *** Bug 507649 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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=459892
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |
--- Comment #25 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-06-24 14:17:29 EDT --- Can you guys work out which of these are going to be used and who is going to maintain?
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=459892
--- Comment #26 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-06-26 10:22:13 EDT --- So, Jeroen, if you want to be the maintainer of this package, I will be happy with it. Please set cvs flag again.
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=459892
Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #27 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2009-06-29 07:11:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #26)
So, Jeroen, if you want to be the maintainer of this package, I will be happy with it. Please set cvs flag again.
Thanks Mamoru, and sorry for the delay.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-mocha Short Description: Mocking and stubbing library Owners: kanarip Branches: EL-4 EL-5 F-10 F-11 devel InitialCC:
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=459892
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #28 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-06-29 13:07:06 EDT --- CVS done.
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=459892
--- Comment #29 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-07-15 14:28:11 EDT --- Would you rebuild this on koji? By the way the current version is 0.9.7.
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=459892
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(kanarip@kanarip.c | |om)
--- Comment #30 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-07-22 12:51:43 EDT --- ping?
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=459892
Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(kanarip@kanarip.c | |om) |
--- Comment #31 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2009-07-23 09:45:26 EDT --- building now, 0.9.7
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=459892
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-26 06:49:23 EDT --- rubygem-mocha-0.9.7-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-mocha-0.9.7-1.fc11
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=459892
--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-26 06:49:30 EDT --- rubygem-mocha-0.9.7-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-mocha-0.9.7-1.fc10
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=459892
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-27 17:32:10 EDT --- rubygem-mocha-0.9.7-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=459892
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |0.9.7-1.fc10 Resolution| |ERRATA
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=459892
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-27 17:38:00 EDT --- rubygem-mocha-0.9.7-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=459892
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|0.9.7-1.fc10 |0.9.7-1.fc11
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=459892
Michal Fojtik mfojtik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mfojtik@redhat.com
--- Comment #36 from Michal Fojtik mfojtik@redhat.com 2010-05-21 06:11:22 EDT --- Could you please build package also for EL-5 ?
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=459892
Michal Fojtik mfojtik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |593274
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=459892
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-21 06:51:05 EDT --- rubygem-mocha-0.9.7-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-mocha-0.9.7-1.el5
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=459892
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-09-08 16:52:11 EDT --- rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.fc13
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=459892
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-09-08 16:52:20 EDT --- rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.fc14
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=459892
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-09-08 16:52:28 EDT --- rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.el5
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=459892
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-09-17 14:21:37 EDT --- rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=459892
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|0.9.7-1.fc11 |rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.fc13
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=459892
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-09-23 08:35:52 EDT --- rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=459892
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.fc13 |rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.fc14
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=459892
--- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-09-24 13:38:53 EDT --- rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=459892
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.fc14 |rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.el5
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=459892
--- Comment #44 from Michal Fojtik mfojtik@redhat.com 2010-10-11 05:27:15 EDT --- Could you please build package also for F-12 ?
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=459892
--- Comment #45 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-10-11 05:38:57 EDT --- F-12 should be okay (unless you need 0.9.8)
$ koji latest-pkg dist-f12-build rubygem-mocha Build Tag Built by ---------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------- rubygem-mocha-0.9.7-2.fc12 dist-f12 jkeating
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=459892
--- Comment #46 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-10-11 05:41:48 EDT --- ... and it seems you need 0.9.8 on F-12.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org