Spec URL: http://github.com/admiyo/MySpecs/blob/master/rubygem-fakefs.spec SRPM URL: http://admiyo.fedorapeople.org/buildr-repo/rubygem-fakefs-0.2.1-1.young.src.rpm Description: A fake filesystem. USeful for unit testing in Ruby
Some notes: * %define -> %global - We now prefer to use %global instead of %define. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define * License - is MIT for * BuildRoot - On Fedora BuildRoot is no longer needed (rpmlint may complain about removing this, however you can ignore it) * abi requirements - Writing "Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8" is mandatory https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines * Test - As this gem contains test/ directory, please add %check section and execute some tests there (like $ rake test) - Also as this gem contains spec/ directory, executing $rake spec is preferred. * Duplicate files https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplicate_Files -------------------------------------------------------------------- 57 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/fakefs-0.2.1/LICENSE 58 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/fakefs-0.2.1/README.markdown -------------------------------------------------------------------- - Please make it sure that every file is listed only once in %files section. * Consistent macro usage - As %geminstdir macro is defined, please use this macro in %files consistently.
Thanks, Mamoru. I'm assuming that most of these comments apply for the other gem2rpm packages that I have submitted. I'll update each of those bugs once I've corrected them.
(In reply to comment #1) > * License > - is MIT for Ah... I meant "License is MIT for this package".
Are you sure about the MIT License? I see the commit message in the Upstream repo that it was added, but the Gem Has "GPL2 or Ruby" in it.
"LICENSE" text clearly shows this is under MIT (if you are saying gem2rpm returned the license is under GPLv2 or Ruby, please don't rely on it)
Just a reminder: Every time you modify your spec file, please - change the release number to avoid confusion - add proper %changelog entry - post the URLs of new srpm / spec on the review request bug ( please post ! ) Otherwise no one will notice you did some work after (potential) reviewer added a comment.
Updated with changes noted above. Please confirm that my apporach to handling the docs is correct. http://github.com/admiyo/MySpecs/blob/ade6668b8ca6c54dc75e0e8377b3d3d00f197854/rubygem-fakefs.spec http://admiyo.fedorapeople.org/buildr-repo/rubygem-fakefs-0.2.1-2.young.noarch.rpm
Please post the URL of srpm, not rebuilt binary rpm.
Sorry for that. http://admiyo.fedorapeople.org/buildr-repo/rubygem-fakefs-0.2.1-2.young.src.rpm
For -2: * Unused macro / consistent macro usage - %ruby_sitelib macro seems to be used no where. - %geminstdir should also be used also in %check. * The place of documents - I don't see any reason you should move README.markdown or so to under %{_defaultdocdir} * Documents - CONTRIBUTORS, Rakefile files should be marked as %doc. - spec/ test/ directories should also be marked as %doc.
One more - .gitignore file is not needed.
ping?
Just one of many buildr related rubygems. PLus, I've been diverted to other tasks. I'll get to this, or someone from the candlepin team will, in the near future.
This initially started as a dependency for rubygem-buildr. It is no longer needed for that. We can cancel this review.