[Bug 226381] Merge Review: ruby

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: ruby


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226381





------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2007-04-25 04:49 EST -------
Created an attachment (id=153401)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=153401&action=view)
missing directories list

For 1.8.6-2:

0. File entry:
* Static library
  - Is /usr/lib/libruby-static.a needed? If so, can this be split
    into -static rpm?
    Note: If this static archive cannot be removed, splitting into
	  different subpackage is too late as F7T4 is frozen.

* Duplicate file entry
  - Please check the following.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[tasaka1 at localhost ruby]$ rpm -qlp /var/lib/mock/ruby-*i386*rpm | grep -v debug
| sort | uniq -d
/usr/lib/ruby
/usr/lib/ruby/1.8
/usr/share/ri/1.8/system/IRB/Context/irb_level-i.yaml
/usr/share/ri/1.8/system/IRB/ExtendCommand/Nop/irb-i.yaml
/usr/share/ri/1.8/system/IRB/ExtendCommandBundle/irb_context-i.yaml
/usr/share/ri/1.8/system/IRB/ExtendCommandBundle/irb_exit-i.yaml
/usr/share/ri/1.8/system/IRB/ExtendCommandBundle/irb_load-i.yaml
/usr/share/ri/1.8/system/IRB/ExtendCommandBundle/irb_original_method_name-c.yaml

/usr/share/ri/1.8/system/IRB/ExtendCommandBundle/irb_require-i.yaml
/usr/share/ri/1.8/system/IRB/IrbLoader/irb_load-i.yaml
/usr/share/ri/1.8/system/IRB/JobManager/irb-i.yaml
/usr/share/ri/1.8/system/IRB/JobManager/main_irb-i.yaml
/usr/share/ri/1.8/system/IRB/irb-c.yaml
/usr/share/ri/1.8/system/IRB/irb_abort-c.yaml
/usr/share/ri/1.8/system/IRB/irb_exit-c.yaml
--------------------------------------------------------------------

* Missing directory ownership
  - Too many, the result is attached. 
    1447 directories are not owned by any package.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
( for f in `rpm -qlp /var/lib/mock/ruby-*i386*rpm | grep -v debug` ; do dirname
$f ; done ) | sort | uniq | LANG=C xargs rpm -qf | grep package
--------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOTE: Due to this, on my system many files related to ruby cannot be
	  seen by non-root users. Several ruby modules package I currently
	  submit for review request fail to be rebuilt.

* From build log:
  - For ruby-libs:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby
warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8
warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby
warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8
warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux
---------------------------------------------------------------------

A. rpmlint - attached
Summary :
  - doc-file-dependency
    Files included as %doc with executable permission adds additional
    dependency to its package. This is generally avioded and documentations
    should not have executable permission.

  - non-executable-script
    Generally "source"d scripts should not have shebangs. It there is some
    exceptions for ruby package, please explain why.

  - spurious-executable-perm
    Same as "doc-file-dependency"

  - wrong-script-interpreter
    Setting interpreter the files under /usr/local is wrong.

Z. Question
* Automatically set CFLAGS
  - One strange thing for me is that fedora ruby rpms sets CFLAGS
    as fedora specific compilation flags by default.

    For example, currently ruby-zoom I submitted (bug 237381) is under
    review. Then
    - Just unpack ruby-zoom-0.2.2.tar.gz
    - do cd ruby-zoom-0.2.2
    - explicitly unset CFLAGS
    - do ruby extconf.rb
    Then Makefile is created. This Makefile sets CFLAGS as fedora specific
    compilation flags by default. Is this a expected behavior?


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.