Spec URL: http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-rubyzip.spec SRPM URL: http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-rubyzip-0.9.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: rubyzip is a ruby module for reading and writing zip files
I will take this one. Instead I will appreciate it if you would review either of my review requests (bug 506168 or bug 507649, both are rubygem related)
Some notes for 0.9.1-1: * %define -> %global - Now Fedora suggests to use %global instead of %define. ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Pure_Ruby_packages https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define * License - When it is written as "is distributed under the same license as ruby", the license tag should be "GPLv2 or Ruby". * ruby(abi) Requires - All ruby related packages must have "Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8". And for consistency I always recommend to also add "BuildRequires: ruby(abi) = 1.8". https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines * %check - As this gem file contains test/ directory, please add %check stage and execute some tests. ( And for this case, I guess expanding gem file under %_builddir at %prep is preferred, ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Gem_expand_stage_change also see: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-mocha/rubygem-mocha.spec ) * %files - As you already defined %geminstdir, please use it also on %files - %defattr must be set before writing %doc entry. - The directory %geminstdir itself is not owned by this package.
ping?
hi. I started re-working the spec file to include your recommendations. %check will be the hardest part. I will finish tomorrow (US).
ping again?
Again ping?
I will close this bug as NOTABUG if no response from the reporter is received within ONE WEEK.
Closing. If someone want to import this package into Fedora, please file a new review request and mark this bug as a duplicate of the new one. Thank you!