[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368 Darryl L. Pierce changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2013-01-12 11:11:32 --- Comment #18 from Darryl L. Pierce --- I've decided not to proceed with packaging this Gem at this time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PmOtz2uZl7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368 --- Comment #17 from Mamoru TASAKA --- For -2.2: * Non-equality dependency - Please fix the line below, too. --- Requires: rubygem(highline) "=>" 1.6.2 --- * Unsatisfied dependency - As I said in the comment 15 (but "not on" should be read as "not only on", sorry), you have to modify gemspec file, too. Currently: --- [mtasaka@localhost ~]$ rpm -q rubygem-bicho rubygem-bicho-0.0.6-2.2.fc.noarch [mtasaka@localhost ~]$ ruby -e "require 'bicho'" /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/dependency.rb:247:in `to_specs': Could not find inifile (~> 0.4.1) amongst [RubyInline-3.11.0, ZenTest-4.6.2, abstract-1.0.0, actionmailer-3.2.8, actionpack-3.2.8, , zoom-0.4.1] (Gem::LoadError) from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/specification.rb:777:in `block in activate_dependencies' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/specification.rb:766:in `each' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/specification.rb:766:in `activate_dependencies' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/specification.rb:750:in `activate' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems.rb:212:in `rescue in try_activate' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems.rb:209:in `try_activate' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/custom_require.rb:59:in `rescue in require' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/custom_require.rb:35:in `require' from -e:1:in `' --- * File list - Rakefile still seems to be installed in -doc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NFvjPs1leX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368
--- Comment #16 from Darryl L. Pierce ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Umm... there are some issues I did not notice before.
> Not sure why I missed them, however anyway:
>
> * Non-equality dependency
> - Well, I did not know that rpm accepts something like
> "Requires: rubygem(inifile) *=>* 0.4.1" (not >= but
> =>), however I don't think this is a normal usage on
> rpm.
>
> Note that "rpm -qp --requires rubygem-bicho-0.0.6-2.1.fc17.src.rpm"
> shows "rubygem(inifile) >= 0.4.1", so "=>" is actually
> regarded as ">=" (by rpm) currently.
Done.
> * Unsatisfied dependency
> - Well, bicho requiers inifile no less than 0.4.1 and less than
> 0.5 (according to metadata), however rubygem-inifile imported
> into Fedora is 2.0.2, so rubygem-bicho (built from this package)
> won't work. Please fix dependency for inifile.
>
> ! Note that you have to modify dependency not on rpm spec file,
> but also on %gem_spec file included in rubygem-bicho binary rpm.
I'm going to work with the upstream to fix this. There doesn't seem to be a
dependency on that specific version of inifile since the code works well with
inifile 2.0.2. Actually, it appears that all of the requirements in the gemspec
seem to be unnecessarily specific or even, really, completely necessary. I
don't have any but inifile installed and yet the code works correctly for me.
> ? (Question) test result on %check
> - From build log, test result on %check looks like:
> --
> + ruby -Ilib test/helper.rb test/test_novell_plugin.rb test/test_query.rb
> Run options:
>
> # Running tests:
>
>
>
> Finished tests in 0.000805s, 0. tests/s, 0. assertions/s.
>
> 0 tests, 0 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 skips
> --
> Note "0 tests". I don't regard this as a blocker for this review,
> however please recheck this.
>
> * Build failure
> - This srpm does not build on koji (for F-19). at least
> "BR: rubygem(minitest)" or so is needed. ref:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4836144
>
> * File list
> - The following entry
> --
> %{gem_instdir}/test
> %exclude %{gem_instdir}/test
> --
> on the _same_ binary rpm is confusing. The latter entry
> (i.e. only %exclude ... line) is enough.
Dropped the former line.
> * Installing original gem, not regenerated gem
> - In %build:
> --
> %build
> gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec
>
> gem install --local \
> --install-dir .%{gem_dir} \
> --bindir .%{_bindir} \
> --force \
> %{SOURCE0}
> --
> Well, using %{SOURCE0} (i.e. original gem file) here
> is not what ruby packaging guideline requests. Use
> regenerated gem file here
> (see: example written on:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#Building_gems
> )
Fixed.
Updated SPEC: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-bicho.spec
Updated SRPM:
http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6-2.2.fc17.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4845739
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mvOd9YzVxR&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368 Bug 836368 depends on bug 874249, which changed state. Bug 874249 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-inifile - INI file reader and writer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874249 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=e1zH3qirWh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368
--- Comment #15 from Mamoru TASAKA ---
Umm... there are some issues I did not notice before.
Not sure why I missed them, however anyway:
* Non-equality dependency
- Well, I did not know that rpm accepts something like
"Requires: rubygem(inifile) *=>* 0.4.1" (not >= but
=>), however I don't think this is a normal usage on
rpm.
Note that "rpm -qp --requires rubygem-bicho-0.0.6-2.1.fc17.src.rpm"
shows "rubygem(inifile) >= 0.4.1", so "=>" is actually
regarded as ">=" (by rpm) currently.
* Unsatisfied dependency
- Well, bicho requiers inifile no less than 0.4.1 and less than
0.5 (according to metadata), however rubygem-inifile imported
into Fedora is 2.0.2, so rubygem-bicho (built from this package)
won't work. Please fix dependency for inifile.
! Note that you have to modify dependency not on rpm spec file,
but also on %gem_spec file included in rubygem-bicho binary rpm.
? (Question) test result on %check
- From build log, test result on %check looks like:
--
+ ruby -Ilib test/helper.rb test/test_novell_plugin.rb test/test_query.rb
Run options:
# Running tests:
Finished tests in 0.000805s, 0. tests/s, 0. assertions/s.
0 tests, 0 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 skips
--
Note "0 tests". I don't regard this as a blocker for this review,
however please recheck this.
* Build failure
- This srpm does not build on koji (for F-19). at least
"BR: rubygem(minitest)" or so is needed. ref:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4836144
* File list
- The following entry
--
%{gem_instdir}/test
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/test
--
on the _same_ binary rpm is confusing. The latter entry
(i.e. only %exclude ... line) is enough.
* Installing original gem, not regenerated gem
- In %build:
--
%build
gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec
gem install --local \
--install-dir .%{gem_dir} \
--bindir .%{_bindir} \
--force \
%{SOURCE0}
--
Well, using %{SOURCE0} (i.e. original gem file) here
is not what ruby packaging guideline requests. Use
regenerated gem file here
(see: example written on:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#Building_gems
)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ztPsHbfgVw&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368
--- Comment #14 from Darryl L. Pierce ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Sorry, I noticed this comment a bit late. But anyway, there are these two
> lines:
>
> %exclude %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
> %doc %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
>
> which should be corrected somehow.
Okay, I'll remove the %doc line when I push the first package for Fedora.
> Not sure if we should not revisit the "Do not ship tests" in guidelines
> though.
Not to pull in a separate discussion on this bug, but in thinking about this,
what is the benefit to shipping tests? It seems they're more of use for
developers and for validation during the build process and don't really serve
much purpose being installed in an RPM.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=e2ncjU0JyH&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368
--- Comment #13 from Vít Ondruch ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> Removed.
>
> > * Unneeded files
> > -
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/
> > Ruby#Running_test_suites
> > - Current packaging guidelines requests NOT to
> > ship files under test/
> >
> > - Also, "Rakefile" is something like "Makefile", which
> > we do not ship in binary rpms.
> >
> > - %{gem_instdir}/bicho.gemspec is usually also not needed.
>
> I've excluded these files from the package.
Sorry, I noticed this comment a bit late. But anyway, there are these two
lines:
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
%doc %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
which should be corrected somehow.
Not sure if we should not revisit the "Do not ship tests" in guidelines though.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bvcldZKOIO&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368
Vít Ondruch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vondr...@redhat.com
--- Comment #12 from Vít Ondruch ---
A few minor nits from my side:
* Run test suite in %{gem_instdir}
- We typically run test suite inside %{gem_instdir}, but it should not be of
much importance here
* Keep the Gemfile*, Rakefile and tests
- I would suggest yout to keep the abovementioned files in -doc subpackage.
Although they make not much sense in the Gem, I would keep them in Fedoras
packages, since upstream ships them. Or on the contrary, ask upstream to
remove them from the package.
* Don't mark Rakefile by %doc macro
- Rakefile is definitely not a document and should not be prepended by %doc
macro
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ghmzyBATo2&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368
--- Comment #11 from Darryl L. Pierce ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> For 0.0.6-2:
>
> ! bug dependency
> - As this bug depends on 836368, I cannot approve this bug
> until bug 836368 is updated.
>
> * About C extension related things
> - This package is noarch, no C code is included, so
> C extension related things are not needed.
> (e.g. export CONFIGURE_ARGS= writing this on noarch
> srpm is confusing)
Removed.
> * Unneeded files
> -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/
> Ruby#Running_test_suites
> - Current packaging guidelines requests NOT to
> ship files under test/
>
> - Also, "Rakefile" is something like "Makefile", which
> we do not ship in binary rpms.
>
> - %{gem_instdir}/bicho.gemspec is usually also not needed.
I've excluded these files from the package.
>
> * Executing test
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/
> Ruby#Running_test_suites
> - As this gem contains test/ directory, please execute
> some test suite on %check if possible. If not possible,
> please write some comments on the spec file
> (e.g. test suite needs network access or so)
To run the tests requires BRs for rubygem-nokogiri and rubygem-inifile. This
works locally, but won't be buildable via Koji until the git repo is made for
rubygem-inifile.
Updated SPEC: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-bicho.spec
updated SRPM:
http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6-2.1.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oAjeOwn3n0&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru TASAKA --- As bug 874249 is already approved (by me), please update this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gfPKA1BTC1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368
--- Comment #9 from Mamoru TASAKA ---
For 0.0.6-2:
! bug dependency
- As this bug depends on 836368, I cannot approve this bug
until bug 836368 is updated.
* About C extension related things
- This package is noarch, no C code is included, so
C extension related things are not needed.
(e.g. export CONFIGURE_ARGS= writing this on noarch
srpm is confusing)
* Unneeded files
-
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#Running_test_suites
- Current packaging guidelines requests NOT to
ship files under test/
- Also, "Rakefile" is something like "Makefile", which
we do not ship in binary rpms.
- %{gem_instdir}/bicho.gemspec is usually also not needed.
* Executing test
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#Running_test_suites
- As this gem contains test/ directory, please execute
some test suite on %check if possible. If not possible,
please write some comments on the spec file
(e.g. test suite needs network access or so)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ok0OzCxpTs&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368 Mamoru TASAKA changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||874249 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=q7yWw8usrr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368 --- Comment #8 from Darryl L. Pierce --- (In reply to comment #7) > First of all, please take a look at > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#RubyGems > > and change your spec file to match the current gem related packaging > guidelines. > (Especially, current guideline requests that gem is unpacked first using gem > unpack) Done. Updated SPEC: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-bicho.spec Updated SRPM: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6-2.fc17.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4773672 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=87dXOGyHIp&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368 Mamoru TASAKA changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #7 from Mamoru TASAKA --- First of all, please take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#RubyGems and change your spec file to match the current gem related packaging guidelines. (Especially, current guideline requests that gem is unpacked first using gem unpack) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=I2GMxh7be0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Taking. I would appreciate it if you would review my review request bug 872910. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jJnneipaVw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368 --- Comment #5 from Darryl L. Pierce --- (In reply to comment #4) > Hi Darryl, > rubygem-bicho depends on rubygem-inifile in runtime. I don't see inifile in > Fedora, nor it has an opened review. I think you should first package all > the dependencies before actually finishing this review. Inifile seems to be > the only thing you will need. Thanks, I missed that in my initial packaging. I've packaged that and have it up for review as well: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874249 -- 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
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bkab...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- Hi Darryl, rubygem-bicho depends on rubygem-inifile in runtime. I don't see inifile in Fedora, nor it has an opened review. I think you should first package all the dependencies before actually finishing this review. Inifile seems to be the only thing you will need. -- 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
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368
--- Comment #3 from Darryl L. Pierce ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Also:
>
> * The spec file doesn't run tests. You should always run the test suite,
> especially if it's provided by upstream. Include the tests that come with
> the gem and run them in %check section. If they are based on Test::Unit you
> can use minitest to run them (which is a recommended way).
>
> In your spec file:
>
> - require minitest
> BuildRequires: rubygem(minitest)
>
> - add check section that goes after %build
> %check
> pushd .%{gem_instdir}
> testrb -Ilib test
The test that fails has a dependency on Novell. So, for now, I'm going to skip
adding any test checks to the specfile.
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4662553
--
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
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368
--- Comment #2 from Josef Stribny ---
Also:
* The spec file doesn't run tests. You should always run the test suite,
especially if it's provided by upstream. Include the tests that come with the
gem and run them in %check section. If they are based on Test::Unit you can use
minitest to run them (which is a recommended way).
In your spec file:
- require minitest
BuildRequires: rubygem(minitest)
- add check section that goes after %build
%check
pushd .%{gem_instdir}
testrb -Ilib test
When I added this %check section I got following errors:
```
Finished tests in 2.049980s, 2.4390 tests/s, 1.9512 assertions/s.
1) Error:
test_oscrc_parsing(NovellPlugin_test):
NameError: undefined local variable or method `user' for
Bicho::Plugins::Novell:Class
/home/strzibny/rpmbuild/BUILD/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6/usr/share/gems/gems/bicho-0.0.6/lib/bicho/plugins/novell.rb:70:in
`oscrc_credentials'
/home/strzibny/rpmbuild/BUILD/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6/usr/share/gems/gems/bicho-0.0.6/test/test_novell_plugin.rb:21:in
`test_oscrc_parsing'
2) Error:
test_urls_are_correct(NovellPlugin_test):
NameError: undefined local variable or method `user' for
Bicho::Plugins::Novell:Class
/home/strzibny/rpmbuild/BUILD/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6/usr/share/gems/gems/bicho-0.0.6/lib/bicho/plugins/novell.rb:70:in
`oscrc_credentials'
/home/strzibny/rpmbuild/BUILD/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6/usr/share/gems/gems/bicho-0.0.6/lib/bicho/plugins/novell.rb:77:in
`transform_api_url_hook'
/home/strzibny/rpmbuild/BUILD/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6/usr/share/gems/gems/bicho-0.0.6/lib/bicho/client.rb:115:in
`block in initialize'
/home/strzibny/rpmbuild/BUILD/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6/usr/share/gems/gems/bicho-0.0.6/lib/bicho/client.rb:108:in
`each'
/home/strzibny/rpmbuild/BUILD/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6/usr/share/gems/gems/bicho-0.0.6/lib/bicho/client.rb:108:in
`initialize'
/home/strzibny/rpmbuild/BUILD/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6/usr/share/gems/gems/bicho-0.0.6/test/test_novell_plugin.rb:7:in
`new'
/home/strzibny/rpmbuild/BUILD/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6/usr/share/gems/gems/bicho-0.0.6/test/test_novell_plugin.rb:7:in
`test_urls_are_correct'
5 tests, 4 assertions, 0 failures, 2 errors, 0 skips
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FF2Q3X (%check)
```
Note: I get this also with the current master branch [1].
[1] https://github.com/dmacvicar/bicho
--
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
[Bug 836368] Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368 Josef Stribny changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jstri...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Josef Stribny --- Hi, * rpmlint gave me no errors on your spec and SRPM. I also run a scratch koji build: `koji --scratch f19 rubygem-bicho-0.0.6-1.fc17.src.rpm` and it built just fine [1]. For the next time I suggest you to include a link to koji with successfully built SRPM before you submit a review request. Additional information about koji is available on fedoraproject.org wiki [2]. * The spec file seems alright. (This is an informal review.) [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4603039 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system?rd=PackageMaintainers/UsingKoji -- 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
