Dne 11.4.2013 14:00, Axilleas Pipinellis napsal(a):
On 04/11/2013 01:52 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
There are some of them already undergoing review:

awesome_print - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839650
backports - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816991 - though I am not sure if we should continue with this one, since it brings nothing new to Fedora
bootstrap-sass - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920436
faraday - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820063
rails_best_practices - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839649
ruby-progressbar - There is rubygem-progressbar, which seems to be the same library: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642666 there was also rubygem-ruby-progressbar review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737551 - Although this one was deferred, not sure if we should not name the gem by upstream
spork - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588476 - This was deferred
stringex - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728051
yajl-ruby - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823351 - This is blocked by upstream a bit :/

Are these listed somewhere, or you manually search for them?

I have saved query in BZ for rubygem- reviews:


Or you can search Fedora's package-review ML.

And also, please note that you are listing also the development dependencies, such as Spork. Spork is no way needed for run-time nor build-time. It is pure development tool, which allows you to run your test suite as soon as you save some changes. We should eliminate such gems from the list. Not that we don't want them in Fedora, but just because they are out of scope for this project IMO.


oops, you're right. I'll exclude devel packages as well.
Nice catch :) I didn't take the Gemfile into account, that's
why it ended up listing these deps.

Some of development packages are needed to run test suite during package builds, which is always good idea, so be careful.