The license is MIT as clarified by upstream, so I'll update the spec file in a second.

I'm taking this one.

Spec with updated license:

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection-0.0.2-2.fcf17.src.rpm

* %{geminstdir}/README.md should be marked as %doc.
* The way you run tests doesn't actually run them (0 tests, 0 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors). When you run them this way: 'testrb -Ilib ./test/*_test.rb', you can discover, that you need to include BR: rubygem(metaclass) and BR: rubygem(builder) (the second one to satisfy the require 'blankslate' in snapshot_test.rb). Please clarify these BRs.
* Consider including license file from the upstream in the package (maybe as a separate source).
* Could you explain if there currently is a particular reason for R: rubygem-metaclass < 0.1?

(In reply to comment #4)
> * %{geminstdir}/README.md should be marked as %doc.

Moved into -doc subpackage and marked as %doc

> * The way you run tests doesn't actually run them (0 tests, 0 assertions, 0
> failures, 0 errors). When you run them this way: 'testrb -Ilib
> ./test/*_test.rb', you can discover, that you need to include BR:
> rubygem(metaclass) and BR: rubygem(builder) (the second one to satisfy the
> require 'blankslate' in snapshot_test.rb). Please clarify these BRs.

Good catch!

> * Consider including license file from the upstream in the package (maybe as a
> separate source).

I'll include the license file as soon as it will be available in official release. In the meantime, I have added comment into the .spec file. It is not hard requirement, so it should not be blocker.

> * Could you explain if there currently is a particular reason for R:
> rubygem-metaclass < 0.1?

It follows the upstream suggested dependency, i.e. the original ~> 0.0.1 dependency transform into > 0.0.1 and <= 0.1, see [1]


Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection-0.0.2-3.fcf17.src.rpm



[1] http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/16

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > * %{geminstdir}/README.md should be marked as %doc.
> 
> Moved into -doc subpackage and marked as %doc
> 
> > * The way you run tests doesn't actually run them (0 tests, 0 assertions, 0
> > failures, 0 errors). When you run them this way: 'testrb -Ilib
> > ./test/*_test.rb', you can discover, that you need to include BR:
> > rubygem(metaclass) and BR: rubygem(builder) (the second one to satisfy the
> > require 'blankslate' in snapshot_test.rb). Please clarify these BRs.
> 
> Good catch!

Great, the tests are run now.

> 
> > * Consider including license file from the upstream in the package (maybe as a
> > separate source).
> 
> I'll include the license file as soon as it will be available in official
> release. In the meantime, I have added comment into the .spec file. It is not
> hard requirement, so it should not be blocker.
> 

Sounds fine.

> > * Could you explain if there currently is a particular reason for R:
> > rubygem-metaclass < 0.1?
> 
> It follows the upstream suggested dependency, i.e. the original ~> 0.0.1
> dependency transform into > 0.0.1 and <= 0.1, see [1]
> 

Yes, sorry about that.

> 
> Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-introspection-0.0.2-3.fcf17.src.rpm
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/16

Package seems OK now, APPROVED.

Thank you for your review!



New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-introspection
Short Description: Dynamic inspection of the hierarchy of method definitions on a Ruby object
Owners: vondruch
Branches: 
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: rubygem-introspection
New Branches: epel7
Owners: tdawson

Git done (by process-git-requests).