Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1340581 - rubygem-thin-1.7.0 is available
Summary: rubygem-thin-1.7.0 is available
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rubygem-thin
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jun Aruga
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1308092
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-05-28 00:25 UTC by Upstream Release Monitoring
Modified: 2016-08-08 13:41 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rubygem-thin-1.7.0-1.fc25, rubygem-thin-1.7.0-1.fc26
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-08-08 13:41:21 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Rebase-helper rebase-helper-debug.log log file. See for details and report the eventual error to rebase-helper https://github.com/phracek/rebase-helper/issues. (12.40 KB, patch)
2016-05-28 00:26 UTC, Upstream Release Monitoring 		no flags Details | Diff
Update to Thin 1.7.0 (3.93 KB, patch)
2016-07-29 17:07 UTC, Jun Aruga 		no flags Details | Diff
View All

Description Upstream Release Monitoring 2016-05-28 00:25:37 UTC 
Latest upstream release: 1.7.0
Current version/release in rawhide: 1.6.4-2.fc24
URL: http://rubygems.org/gems/thin

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy

More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring

Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream.

Based on the information from anitya:  https://release-monitoring.org/project/4604/
Comment 1 Upstream Release Monitoring 2016-05-28 00:26:06 UTC 
Patching or scratch build for rubygem-thin-1.6.4 failed.
Comment 2 Upstream Release Monitoring 2016-05-28 00:26:08 UTC 
Created attachment 1162584 [details]
Rebase-helper rebase-helper-debug.log log file.
See for details and report the eventual error to rebase-helper https://github.com/phracek/rebase-helper/issues.
Comment 3 Upstream Release Monitoring 2016-05-28 00:26:10 UTC 
Following patches has been deleted:
['raven-use-system-cacert.patch']
Comment 4 Jun Aruga 2016-07-29 16:59:18 UTC 
I will do this!
Comment 5 Jun Aruga 2016-07-29 17:07:26 UTC 
Created attachment 1185639 [details]
Update to Thin 1.7.0

Hi,

I created a patch to update to latest version 1.7.0.
Could you check this?
I want to push this to both master and f25 branch.

Thank you.

# Highlight

- The package dependency is ok

- Updated the license information.
  Referred gemspec file and license list page on Fedora Project.

- Fedora 22's end of life was passed.

- %description was written based on README.md, however it was updated on the upstream. So, I update it for that.

- Changed the logic to add executable bit to the files with shebang.
  Because new logic is easier to recognize target files.
  I sent the upstream pull-request for that. After merged, we can remove the lines in the future.

Thanks.
Comment 6 Jun Aruga 2016-07-29 17:15:22 UTC 
The main purpose for this patch is to fix current version's broken dependency.
Comment 7 Vít Ondruch 2016-08-04 12:58:39 UTC 
(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #5)
> - Fedora 22's end of life was passed.

There is no reason to update the versions, definitely not in this way. The condition could be dropped, but not changed the version from 22 to 23

> - %description was written based on README.md, however it was updated on the
> upstream. So, I update it for that.

I think that the original description was way better and that the upstream description is not enough.
 

And also, the %file section was quite detailed, but that does not mean it was wrong. The more explicit the %file version is, the lower risk something is missing or something unexpected will sneak in. So would you mind to elaborate, why the %files section should be simplified?
Comment 8 Jun Aruga 2016-08-04 16:38:23 UTC 
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #5)
> > - Fedora 22's end of life was passed.
> 
> There is no reason to update the versions, definitely not in this way. The
> condition could be dropped, but not changed the version from 22 to 23
> 
> > - %description was written based on README.md, however it was updated on the
> > upstream. So, I update it for that.
> 
> I think that the original description was way better and that the upstream
> description is not enough.

I can agree for above things.

> And also, the %file section was quite detailed, but that does not mean it
> was wrong. The more explicit the %file version is, the lower risk something
> is missing or something unexpected will sneak in. So would you mind to
> elaborate, why the %files section should be simplified?

I can not still agree for above thing. And I do not need to agree it.
So, I like you can update based on my patch by yourself, and commit by your name.
Comment 9 Jun Aruga 2016-08-04 16:47:12 UTC 
> elaborate, why the %files section should be simplified?

Though I have forgot the detail, 
maybe file or directory structure was changed, after version up.
I had to modify %files section.
Comment 10 Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client 2016-08-08 12:16:27 UTC 
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database.  Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
Comment 11 Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client 2016-08-08 12:18:29 UTC 
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database.  Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
Comment 12 Jun Aruga 2016-08-08 13:40:48 UTC 
I have submitted for master and f25, following your opinion.

About %files, I have committed on my way, as we have talked directly.

I have and compared and checked the list of included files in both rubygem-thin rpm and rubygem-thin-doc rpm file for before and after modification. And it is correct. It is better to maintain the package for me.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.