Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-rack-cache.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-rack-cache-1.0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: HTTP Caching for Rack Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3187118
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).