| Summary: | Review Request: rubygem-rack-cache - HTTP Caching for Rack | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Vít Ondruch <vondruch> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | mtasaka, notting, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mtasaka:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-11-29 13:18:34 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
Vít Ondruch
2011-07-08 14:16:23 UTC
Vit, are you still insterested in this package? If so, would you have some time to review my package (bug 746438)? Yes, I am still interested in rack-cache. However I can't do review for you probably sooner than next week, if that is okay with you. Okay. I will try to look at this bug this weekend. Well, the latest rack-cache is 1.1. First of all, would you update to the latest one? Yes, rack-cache 1.1 is the most recent one. I have updated the package ... Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-rack-cache.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-rack-cache-1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3545680 I will check this later. Well,
* Description
- I think the %description section can be expanded to be
more illustrative, as in "README" file or on the URL.
* Documents
- I think "README" should be in the main rpm, because it
says "README".
- Maybe "CHANGES" can also in the main package
* "gem" command usage
- I prefert to use "gem -V" (verbose mode), however not a blocker
Apart from these, I see no blocker. (srpm, binary) rpms are clean and can be correctly installed, and seems to be working.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This package (rubygem-rack-cache) is APPROVED by mtasaka
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-rack-cache Short Description: HTTP Caching for Rack Owners: vondruch Branches: InitialCC: Thank you for your review. (In reply to comment #7) > Well, > > * Description > - I think the %description section can be expanded to be > more illustrative, as in "README" file or on the URL. You are right. Upstream was not overly verbose in gem description. I'll take the first paragraph of the README. > * Documents > - I think "README" should be in the main rpm, because it > says "README". Unfortunately there is no guideline which specifies this. I usually keep README in the main package only if it is the only source of license information. However this gem has COPYING file attached, therefore I decided to move everything into -doc subpackage. > - Maybe "CHANGES" can also in the main package Similarly to above. I personally prefer online documentation, therefore I am fan of -doc subpackages and deferring as much files as I can into it. > * "gem" command usage > - I prefert to use "gem -V" (verbose mode), however not a blocker I do consider this flag important only for binary gems. Otherwise it add unnecessary clutter into the log, which may hide more important things. Git done (by process-git-requests). |