[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-13b2608221 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-13b2608221 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-13b2608221 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-13b2608221 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-13b2608221 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-13b2608221 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-03-17 02:18:02 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-4e44f94635 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 Bug 1933464 depends on bug 1933462, which changed state. Bug 1933462 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-pastel - Terminal strings styling with intuitive and clean API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933462 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-4e44f94635 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4e44f94635 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 Bug 1933464 depends on bug 1933471, which changed state. Bug 1933471 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-hub - A command-line tool that makes git easier to use with GitHub https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933471 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464
--- Comment #12 from Vít Ondruch ---
(In reply to Phil Dibowitz from comment #11)
> * The ruby packaging guidelines are clear here, and they afaict disagree
> with you:
>
> ```
> Packages that contain Ruby Gems MUST be called rubygem-%{gem_name}.
> ```
>
> The binary package that provides an application I don't think makes sense as
> rubygem- but the requirements are clear that the base package must be
> rubygem-
This part of guidelines applies for applications:
~~~
Application packages that mainly provide user-level tools that happen to be
written in Ruby MUST follow the general Naming Guidelines instead.
~~~
I agree that the guidelines are ambiguous at this point, but I am afraid there
is no clear cut. The guidelines certainly were not meant in a way to have
`rubygem-foo` SRPM and while having only `foo` RPM. The good question to ask
when deciding is the question if there is any other use for the package as a
library. Looking on sugarjar reverse dependencies [1], nothing depends on it,
therefore it is certainly good candidate for application.
And if you like down bellow on the application example, while quite old one,
you would see that the deltacloud-core is distributed as a gem, but later
installed into regular `%{_datadir}` structure.
The confusion comes from duality of RubyGems:
1) It is good distribution method for Ruby code while
2) It is also Ruby load path manager
But at this point, I am not sure I have not made the water just muddier ů
> * I can poke at reordering the globals in the next build, I assume that's
> what you mean
No, I meant that for example the `Source` directives are at the end of
preamble. While it is certainly possible, it is uncommon. This is just minor
nit of course.
> * The specs are unit tests not functional tests and do not work in the
> installdir, they only work in the source, which is why I did it that way.
This way it works:
~~~
%if %{with tests}
%check
pushd .%{gem_instdir}
cp -a %{_builddir}/spec .
rspec spec
popd
%endif
~~~
I think you could struggle with the symbolic link. I prefer to use them
whenever possible, but the `cp` have to be used here instead. The issue is that
the link does not play nice with `require_relative` used in the test suite.
> I did originally use gem2rpm, but it went through a lot of revisions since
> then...
I like to keep my spec files as close to the original gem2rpm output as
possible, because I always use gem2rpm even for updates. This serves two
purposes:
1) If there are some changes in RubyGems packaging best practices, I'll notice
them and can incorporate them into the .spec file
2) It helps to notice changes in upstream, such as added/removed files,
different build dependencies.
I am not saying this is the only way to do the packaging, but it works for me
;)
> Feedback appreciated!
[1] https://rubygems.org/gems/sugarjar/reverse_dependencies
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 Bug 1933464 depends on bug 1920112, which changed state. Bug 1920112 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-mixlib-log - A gem that provides a simple mixin for log functionality https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920112 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464
--- Comment #11 from Phil Dibowitz ---
* no, that `find` was debug, good catch thanks
* The ruby packaging guidelines are clear here, and they afaict disagree with
you:
```
Packages that contain Ruby Gems MUST be called rubygem-%{gem_name}.
```
The binary package that provides an application I don't think makes sense as
rubygem- but the requirements are clear that the base package must be rubygem-
* I can poke at reordering the globals in the next build, I assume that's what
you mean
* re: spec Oops, missed that one, good call
* The specs are unit tests not functional tests and do not work in the
installdir, they only work in the source, which is why I did it that way.
I did originally use gem2rpm, but it went through a lot of revisions since
then...
Feedback appreciated!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464
Vít Ondruch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vondr...@redhat.com
--- Comment #10 from Vít Ondruch ---
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #8)
> - per fedora-review, you can actually delete the whole %clean section
This is actually SHOULD. It is not needed and while ago, there was put effort
into removing the `%clean` sections from all packages.
And I have several more remarks actually:
* Is this [1] any useful?
* The layout of the package is quite nonstandard. I'd expect that the package
(including spec file and SRPM) is either name `sugarjar`, if it is considered
application, or named `rubygem-sugarjar` otherwise. The current naming makes
hard to understand the relation between `sugarjar` RPM and `rubygem-sugarjar`
SRPM. There is no other package like this.
* The order of preamble also deviates from common order, which makes the
package harder to navigate.
* We typically tend to use the virtual provides for specifying dependencies,
e.g. `BuildRequires: rubygem(rspec)` instead of `BuildRequires: rubygem-rspec`.
* We typically tend to run the test suite under the `pushd .%{gem_instdir}`. It
is of course possible to run it directly in `%{builddir}`, which is default,
but there might be possibly small differences.
I'd suggest to use rubygem-gem2rpm to generate the initial boilerplate.
[1]
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-sugarjar/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-sugarjar.spec#_64
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 --- Comment #9 from Tomas Hrcka --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-sugarjar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464
Davide Cavalca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Davide Cavalca ---
- the specfile in the src.rpm doesn't match the one in the URL; the delta is
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
-
--- /tmp/a/1933464-rubygem-sugarjar/srpm/rubygem-sugarjar.spec 2021-03-10
08:46:52.573469876 -0800
+++ /tmp/a/1933464-rubygem-sugarjar/srpm-unpacked/rubygem-sugarjar.spec
2021-03-09 23:50:59.0 -0800
@@ -67,5 +67,5 @@
%clean
-rm -rf %{buildroot}
+rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files -n sugarjar
which isn't actually important
- per fedora-review, you can actually delete the whole %clean section
- consider adding a manpage for sj (ideally upstream)
None of these are blocking, APPROVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464
--- Comment #7 from Davide Cavalca ---
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /tmp/a/1933464-rubygem-
sugarjar/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 --- Comment #6 from Phil Dibowitz --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jaymzh/sugarjar/master/rubygem-sugarjar.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9570/63479570/rubygem-sugarjar-0.0.9-3.fc35.src.rpm Sorry for the delay it took a while for hub to make it through compose. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 --- Comment #5 from Phil Dibowitz --- Thanks! - license/global will fix. - not much I can do about buggy license check ;) - tests will be enabled once you get rubygem-mixlib-log out, disabled them so I could test builds in the meantime. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 --- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca --- I'll do a formal review once the dependencies are in, as this cannot be installed as-is. Some notes: - use %license instead of %doc for the license - use %global instead of %define for the constants - spec/commands_spec.rb seems to be tripping up licensecheck - the test suite is mandatory for ruby packages per policy -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 Davide Cavalca changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcava...@fb.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dcava...@fb.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca --- Taking this review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 --- Comment #2 from Phil Dibowitz --- OK - dependencies updated. Also fixed binary package name. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 Phil Dibowitz changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jaymzh/sugarjar/master/rubygem-sugarjar.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1816/62821816/rubygem-sugarjar-0.0.9-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: a git/github helper utility Fedora Account System Username: jaymzh This depends on rubygem-pastel (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933462) which depends on rubygem-tty-color (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933459). It also depends on rubygem-mixlib-log which is in review by another developer (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920112). Dependencies are fun. :) One note about this spec, there's no ri/rdoc in the ruby source, so I dropped the doc package as well as all the empty generated docs from the base package. And one final note, I am a first-time packager (pending the aforementioned 2 packages) and thus will need a sponsor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 Phil Dibowitz changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1933471 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933471 [Bug 1933471] Review Request: golang-github-hub - A command-line tool that makes git easier to use with GitHub -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 --- Comment #1 from Phil Dibowitz --- Hmm hold up on this. I forgot I have a dependency on hub and will need to figure out how to package that and then update this to reflect. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 Phil Dibowitz changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1933462 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933462 [Bug 1933462] Review Request: rubygem-pastel - Terminal strings styling with intuitive and clean API -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933464] Review Request: rubygem-sugarjar - A git/github helper utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 Phil Dibowitz changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1920112 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920112 [Bug 1920112] Review Request: rubygem-mixlib-log - A gem that provides a simple mixin for log functionality -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
