[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-24 11:27:30 EDT --- Rebuilt on all branches, submit push requests on bodhi for F-10/9, closing. Thank you for the review and CVS procedure. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-23 18:26:54 EDT --- cvs done. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@tummy.com --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-20 16:15:17 EDT --- If all you have to go on is the LICENSE.txt file, the spec file should have 'GPL+' because it could be under any version of the GPL. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-20 21:50:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) If all you have to go on is the LICENSE.txt file, the spec file should have 'GPL+' because it could be under any version of the GPL. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F It is already. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 --- Comment #9 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-20 22:10:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) If all you have to go on is the LICENSE.txt file, the spec file should have 'GPL+' because it could be under any version of the GPL. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F I thought so but I heard mixed opinions about this. See, e.g. comments 22, 23 and 24 in bug #444366 . deco does not have any GPL version info in source files but I was told to set the license tag as GPLv3 instead of GPL+. Different people suggest different things... -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 --- Comment #10 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-20 22:13:06 EDT --- Sorry, nevermind my last message. It was a different situation. I think I'm just confusing myself :) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-20 23:48:33 EDT --- Sorry, I must have looked at a eariler spec, the one from comment #4 does indeed have GPL+. Sorry for my confusion. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-19 17:43:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Thank you for initial comments. You're welcome. (In reply to comment #3) * The license file and the website license page say GPLv2+. The source code files do not indicate a license. I think setting the license as GPLc2+ will be more appropriate. - Well, what URL shows that this is under GPLv2+? (note that I saw that rubyforge.org website says that this is under GPLv2, however I guess this license tag is automatically tagged from license text. Moreover I saw that in many cases the license tag on website is wrong) On the bottom of the homepage for this gem: http://mechanize.rubyforge.org/mechanize/ there is a LICENSE section. When I click on the LICENSE, it gives me the full text of GPLv2 (which has the or later clause). Don't you think we should believe the website? * Latest version must be packaged. I can't find any information to confirm this. Where is download section on the website? - See: http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems/ Yeah I tried to go there before and got a 403 mirror. I guess I hit to a bad mirror. Now I confirm that 0.9.0 is the latest version. Everything else is fine. This package (rubygem-mechanize) is APPROVED by oget -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 Bug 477533 depends on bug 477883, which changed state. Bug 477883 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-nokogiri - An HTML, XML, SAX, and Reader parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477883 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-20 00:26:33 EDT --- Thank you. (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #3) * The license file and the website license page say GPLv2+. The source code files do not indicate a license. I think setting the license as GPLc2+ will be more appropriate. - Well, what URL shows that this is under GPLv2+? (note that I saw that rubyforge.org website says that this is under GPLv2, however I guess this license tag is automatically tagged from license text. Moreover I saw that in many cases the license tag on website is wrong) On the bottom of the homepage for this gem: http://mechanize.rubyforge.org/mechanize/ there is a LICENSE section. When I click on the LICENSE, it gives me the full text of GPLv2 (which has the or later clause). Don't you think we should believe the website? - LICENSE section says this is just under GPL and the following link shows just GPLv2 license text (any later clause is just a example also written in other GPLv2 license text). So this does not render this package to be under GPLv2. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rubygem-mechanize Short Description:A handy web browsing ruby object Owners: mtasaka Branches: F-10 F-9 InitialCC:(nobody) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|oget.fed...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-18
17:30:57 EDT ---
Hi Mamoru,
I reviewed this package. There are a few minor things to go through:
* rpmlint gives bunch of dangling-symlink warnings. But these are resolved by
the dependencies by the packages, so it is OK.
The other rpmlint complaints are:
rubygem-mechanize.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mechanize-0.9.0/lib/www/mechanize/chain/post_connect_hook.rb
Is this needed?
rubygem-mechanize-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation
I see that both rubygem-gettext-doc and rubygem-zoom-doc install their
documentation (examples,test) inside %doc
What is the reason that this package is different?
rubygem-mechanize-doc.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mechanize-0.9.0/test/htdocs/google.html
This is possibly a wrong permission error. It can easily be fixed.
ruby-mechanize.noarch: W: no-documentation
This one can be ignored.
* I don't think we need to package Manifest.txt. Do we usually package manifest
files on ruby packages?
* The license file and the website license page say GPLv2+. The source code
files do not indicate a license. I think setting the license as GPLc2+ will be
more appropriate.
* Latest version must be packaged. I can't find any information to confirm
this. Where is download section on the website?
* Ruby guidelines say: A ruby extension/library package must indicate what it
provides with a Provides: ruby(LIBRARY) = VERSION declaration in the spec file
So I think
Provides: ruby(%{gemname}) = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: rubygem(%{gemname}) = %{version}-%{release}
must be changed to
Provides: ruby(%{gemname}) = %{version}
Provides: rubygem(%{gemname}) = %{version}
* Do we need this line:?
#Requires: rubygem(hoe)
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||477883 --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-24 13:38:34 EDT --- http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-mechanize/rubygem-mechanize.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-mechanize/rubygem-mechanize-0.9.0-1.fc.src.rpm * Thu Dec 25 2008 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 0.9.0-1 - 0.9.0 - Dependency changed: hpricot - nokogiri -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-24 13:42:31 EDT --- koji scratch build: - For dist-f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1020855 - For dist-f10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1020856 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
