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=653407 --- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann <mgold...@redhat.com> 2010-11-15 13:42:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > Some notes: > > * License > ----------------------------------------------------- > Overall: ASL 2.0 > > GPL+ > ./lib/hashery/ini.rb > ./lib/hashery/linkedlist.rb > > GPLv2 or Ruby > ./lib/hashery/ostructable.rb > ----------------------------------------------------- > - The license tag should be "ASL 2.0 and GPL+ and (GPLv2 or Ruby)" Fixed! > ! Usability > - It seems that hashery 1.3.0 gem is a bit broken > ----------------------------------------------------- > [tasa...@localhost ~]$ irb > irb(main):001:0> require "rubygems" > ge=> true > irb(main):002:0> gem "hashery" > => true > irb(main):003:0> require "hashery" > LoadError: no such file to load -- facets/basicobject > from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in > `gem_original_require' > from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `require' > from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/hashery-1.3.0/lib/hashery/openobject.rb:1 > from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in > `gem_original_require' > from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `require' > from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/hashery-1.3.0/lib/hashery.rb:7 > from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in > `gem_original_require' > from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `require' > from (irb):3 > ----------------------------------------------------- > Currently I won't make this a blocker for this review request > ( as requiring scripts under lib/hashery/ directly seems to work,] > except for "lib/hashery/openobject.rb"), However would you contact the > upstream? Sure, created new issue for that: https://github.com/rubyworks/hashery/issues/issue/5 > ? Scripts under test/ > - How can scripts under test/ directory be used? (If some test programs can > be executable, would you do some tests in %check?) Well, it's a bit complicated. Tests are written using Lemon framework (https://github.com/proutils/lemon https://rubygems.org/gems/lemon). This framework has big dependency tree which is not packaged as RPMs. Is this a hard require to execute tests? Could we add it in next versions when the tree will be at least half-packaged? Updated files: Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-hashery.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-hashery-1.3.0-2.fc14.src.rpm Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review