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