Bug 507761

I will take this one. Instead I will appreciate it if you
would review my review requests (bug 506168 or bug 507649,
both are rubygem related)

For 0.8.312-1:

* %define -> %global
  - We now recommend to use %global instead of %global:
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Build_Architecture_and_File_Placement
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define

* License
  - From lib/term/ansicolor.rb, the license tag should be
    "GPLv2"

* Moving some document files
  - Would you explain why you want to move README or so from %geminstdir
    to %gemdir/doc ?
    Note that $ gem contents coderay expects that those (README or so) files
    are under %geminstdir.

* %files
  - As you already defined %geminstdir, please use it also in %files
    instead of using %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/

! Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------
I try to make CodeRay easy to use and intuitive, ....
----------------------------------------------------------------
  - It is ambiguous what "I" mean here...

(In reply to comment #2)
> For 0.8.312-1:
> 
> * %define -> %global
>   - We now recommend to use %global instead of %global:
>    
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Build_Architecture_and_File_Placement
>     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define

- Fixed

> * License
>   - From lib/term/ansicolor.rb, the license tag should be
>     "GPLv2"
> 

- lib/term/ansicolor.rb will be provided by package rubygem-term-ansicolor ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504469 ).
i have added ruby(term-ansicolor) into requires and during %install is directory lib/term removed.

I give there LGPLv2 license as this license is specified on web of project and in LICENSE file

> * Moving some document files
>   - Would you explain why you want to move README or so from %geminstdir
>     to %gemdir/doc ?
>     Note that $ gem contents coderay expects that those (README or so) files
>     are under %geminstdir.
-

- Fixed

> * %files
>   - As you already defined %geminstdir, please use it also in %files
>     instead of using %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/

- Fixed

> ! Summary
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> I try to make CodeRay easy to use and intuitive, ....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>   - It is ambiguous what "I" mean here...  

- Fixed

Spec URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-coderay.spec
SRPM URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-coderay-0.8.312-2.fc11.src.rpm

Thanks for update. Now I will wait for bug 504469 to be updated.

For -2:

* License
  - Now for this license the license tag should be "LGPLv2+".

* Summary
  - Now Fedora thinks writing the package name (Coderay) in
    Summary is redundant.

* Directory ownership issue
  - The directory %{geminstdir}/lib is not owned by this package.

(In reply to comment #5)
> For -2:
> 
> * License
>   - Now for this license the license tag should be "LGPLv2+".
- Fixed

> * Summary
>   - Now Fedora thinks writing the package name (Coderay) in
>     Summary is redundant.
- Where is this written? I didn't see it in packaging guidelines.

> * Directory ownership issue
>   - The directory %{geminstdir}/lib is not owned by this package.  

Spec URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-coderay.spec
SRPM URL:
http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-coderay-0.8.312-3.fc11.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #6)
> > * Summary
> >   - Now Fedora thinks writing the package name (Coderay) in
> >     Summary is redundant.
> - Where is this written? I didn't see it in packaging guidelines.

See the (long) discussion beginning on
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-November/msg01484.html
especially
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-November/msg01676.html
and try:

$ rpmlint -I name-repeated-in-summary

Yes, I read it, and I have tried (rpmlint from epel):
$ rpmlint -I name-repeated-in-summary
name-repeated-in-summary:

Personally I don't think that this could be considered as blocker, I take it as recommendation 
Summary: Fast syntax highlighter engine for many programming languages

Spec URL: http://www.brandforge.sk/hpejakle/packages/rubygem-coderay.spec

Okay.

--------------------------------------------------------
  This package (rubygem-coderay) is APPROVED by mtasaka
--------------------------------------------------------

-------

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-coderay
Short Description: Fast syntax highlighter engine for many programming languages
Owners: hpejakle
Branches: F-10 F-11 F-12
InitialCC:

We cannot create F-12 branches yet; it is far too early in the release process for that.

Otherwise, CVS done.

Please build this package on koji and submit push requests for F-10/11
on bodhi.

rubygem-coderay-0.8.312-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-coderay-0.8.312-3.fc10

rubygem-coderay-0.8.312-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-coderay-0.8.312-3.fc11

rubygem-coderay-0.8.312-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

rubygem-coderay-0.8.312-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.