Spec URL: https://hodne.io/~henrikhodne/fedora/rubygem-redcard.spec SRPM URL: https://hodne.io/~henrikhodne/fedora/rubygem-redcard-1.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: RedCard provides a standard way to ensure that the running Ruby implementation matches the desired language version, implementation, and implementation version. Fedora Account System Username: henrikhodne
Hi Henrik, Thanks for contributing this to Fedora. A couple of observations: 1. Why is the test suite not run in %check? 2. LICENSE should be marked as %doc. 3. I recommend moving README.md out of the -doc subpackage and into the main package. 4. I recommend excluding Rakefile, Gemfile, and %{gem_instdir}/redcard.gemspec. For example, immediately after %gem_install, I usually insert the following "rm" command: ... %gem_install # Remove unnecessary gemspec file rm .%{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec 5. gem2rpm leaves trailing whitespace on a couple lines. Please remove this.
Thank you! Replies are in-line below: > 1. Why is the test suite not run in %check? > 2. LICENSE should be marked as %doc. > 3. I recommend moving README.md out of the -doc subpackage and into the main package. Fixed, fixed and moved. > 4. I recommend excluding Rakefile, Gemfile, and %{gem_instdir}/redcard.gemspec. > > For example, immediately after %gem_install, I usually insert the following "rm" command: > > ... > > %gem_install > > # Remove unnecessary gemspec file > rm .%{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec I marked them as %exclude now. I can rm them instead if you think that is better? > 5. gem2rpm leaves trailing whitespace on a couple lines. Please remove this. Where are you seeing trailing whitespaces? I couldn't find any in the spec file. I uploaded the new spec and SRPM in the same location as listed above.
(In reply to Henrik Hodne from comment #2) > Where are you seeing trailing whitespaces? I couldn't find any in the spec > file. You're quite right about the whitespace being fixed; my bad! > I uploaded the new spec and SRPM in the same location as listed above. It's not strictly required, but it's a good idea to bump the release number and upload a new SRPM. This feels a little bureaucratic, but it will show potential sponsors that you understand the process of bugfixing and releasing new versions in Fedora. (In Fedora's build system, Koji, every new build requires a unique NEVR, Name-Epoch-Version-Release combination). Another thing that will help with getting sponsored is submitting more than one package, or in particular, doing unofficial reviews of others' packages. Either approach will show sponsors that you understand the Fedora guidelines and you're a reasonable person to work with :)
(In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #3) > (In reply to Henrik Hodne from comment #2) > > I uploaded the new spec and SRPM in the same location as listed above. > > It's not strictly required, but it's a good idea to bump the release number > and upload a new SRPM. This feels a little bureaucratic, but it will show > potential sponsors that you understand the process of bugfixing and > releasing new versions in Fedora. (In Fedora's build system, Koji, every new > build requires a unique NEVR, Name-Epoch-Version-Release combination). Ah, I'll do that in the future then. I didn't do it this time since the package hadn't been released, but I have no problem bumping it in the future for bugfixes even if the previous ones haven't been released. > Another thing that will help with getting sponsored is submitting more than > one package, or in particular, doing unofficial reviews of others' packages. > Either approach will show sponsors that you understand the Fedora guidelines > and you're a reasonable person to work with :) I already have one other package submitted: the_silver_searcher (bug 1008063). I also have a few other RubyGems packages I want to submit (all dependencies of Rubinius, which I also have mostly working locally, but since it depends on some RubyGems I figured I'd start with those). I just started with this one to check if I was on the right track for packaging RubyGems. Thanks for the tips!
Links for spec file and srpm are broken.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.