Spec URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-aeolus-cli.spec SRPM URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-4.fc15.src.rpm Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3429171 Description: CLI for Aeolus Image Factory
I'll be happy to take this review. == Must Requirements == > [ OK ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the > build produces. The output should be posted in the review.(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint) rpmlint shows only several warnings for the packages, these are non-fatal and in my opinion do not need to be resolved for this review. rubygem-aeolus-cli.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/aeolus-cli-0.1.0/ri/Aeolus/Image/BuildCommand/combo_implemented%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-aeolus-cli.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/aeolus-cli-0.1.0/ri/Aeolus/Image/Warehouse/BucketObject/delete%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-aeolus-cli.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/aeolus-cli-0.1.0/ri/Aeolus/Image/ImageBuild/delete%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-aeolus-cli.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/aeolus-cli-0.1.0/ri/Aeolus/Image/TargetImage/delete%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-aeolus-cli.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/aeolus-cli-0.1.0/ri/Aeolus/Image/PushCommand/combo_implemented%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-aeolus-cli.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/aeolus-cli-0.1.0/ri/Aeolus/Image/WarehouseModel/is_file%3f-c.yaml %3f rubygem-aeolus-cli.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/aeolus-cli-0.1.0/ri/Aeolus/Image/BaseCommand/is_file%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-aeolus-cli.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/aeolus-cli-0.1.0/ri/Aeolus/Image/BaseCommand/is_uuid%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-aeolus-cli.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/aeolus-cli-0.1.0/ri/Aeolus/Image/Warehouse/Bucket/include%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-aeolus-cli.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/aeolus-cli-0.1.0/ri/Aeolus/Image/WarehouseModel/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-aeolus-cli.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/aeolus-cli-0.1.0/ri/Aeolus/Image/WarehouseModel/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-aeolus-cli.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/aeolus-cli-0.1.0/ri/Aeolus/Image/ProviderImage/delete%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-aeolus-cli.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/aeolus-cli-0.1.0/ri/Aeolus/Image/Image/delete%21-i.yaml %21 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. > [ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines > [ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package > <code>%{name}</code>, in the format <code>%{name}.spec</code> unless your > package has an exemption. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name). > [ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines. > [ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and > meet the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines. > [ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames) > [ NA ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the > license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the > license(s) for the package must be included in <code>%doc</code>.(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License Text) > [ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#summary) > [ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package '''MUST''' be legible. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Spec_Legibility) > [ FAIL ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream > source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. > If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for how to deal with > this. The instructions included in the .spec for creating the Source URL do not work. # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/aeolus/conductor.git # git checkout next # cd services/image_factory/aeolus-image # rake gem # grab image_factory_console-0.0.1.gem from the pkg subdir > [ OK ] MUST: The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into > binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Support) See koji link in comment#0 ... also built against fedora-16 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3437047 > [ NA ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on > an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in > <code>ExcludeArch</code>. Each architecture listed in <code>ExcludeArch</code> > '''MUST''' have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package > does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number '''MUST''' be > placed in a comment, next to the corresponding <code>ExcludeArch</code> line. > (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures) > [ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in > <code>BuildRequires</code>, except for any that are listed in the > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 section of the > Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as <code>BuildRequires</code> is > optional. Apply common sense. > [ NA ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by > using the <code>%find_lang</code> macro. Using > <code>%{_datadir}/locale/*</code> is strictly forbidden.(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files) > [ NA ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared > library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, > must call ldconfig in <code>%post</code> and <code>%postun</code>. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries) > [ OK ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries) > [ NA ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must > state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for > relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is > considered a blocker. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RelocatablePackages) > [ OK ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does > not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which > does create that directory. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership) > [ OK ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec > file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific > situations)(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles) > [ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be > set with executable permissions, for example. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions) > [ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros) > [ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent) > [ NA ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The > definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not > restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation) > [ OK ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the > runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must > run properly if it is not present. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation) > [ NA ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages) > [ NA ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries) > [ NA ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. > libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in > a -devel package. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages) > [ NA ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the > base package using a fully versioned dependency: <code>Requires: > %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} </code> (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage) > [ NA ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must > be removed in the spec if they are built.(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries) > [ NA ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a > %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with > desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged > GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the > spec file with your explanation. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop) > [ FAIL ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by > other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be > installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely > upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share > ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the > <code>filesystem</code> or <code>man</code> package. If you feel that you have > a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please > present that at package review time. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership) Transaction Check Error: file /usr/bin/aeolus-image from install of rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-4.fc16.noarch conflicts with file from package rubygem-aeolus-image-0.0.1-5.fc16.noarch file /usr/share/man/man1/aeolus-image-build.1.gz from install of rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-4.fc16.noarch conflicts with file from package rubygem-aeolus-image-0.0.1-5.fc16.noarch file /usr/share/man/man1/aeolus-image-list.1.gz from install of rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-4.fc16.noarch conflicts with file from package rubygem-aeolus-image-0.0.1-5.fc16.noarch > [ OK ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilenameEncoding) == Should Requirements == > [ WARN ] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a > separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text) > [ OK ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file > should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#summary) > [ OK ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/MockTricks) Builds in mock locally and as a scratch build in koji (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3437047) > [ OK ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all > supported architectures. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#ArchitectureSupport) > [ WARN ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as > described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. I have no idea how to test this ... any suggestions? > [ NA ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is > vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Scriptlets) > [ NA ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage) > [ NA ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their > usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a > -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool > not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PkgconfigFiles) > [ OK ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, > /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the > file instead of the file itself. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileDeps) Appears to install cleanly in a fresh mock chroot. I've not tested it yet from a minimal install, so I can't tell if all runtime deps are available. > [ OK ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If > it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Man_pages) /usr/share/man/man1/aeolus-image-build.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/aeolus-image-import.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/aeolus-image-list.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/aeolus-image-push.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/aeolus-image.1.gz == Ruby Requirements == > [ OK ] Packages that contain Ruby Gems must be called rubygem-%{gemname} where gemname is the name from the Gem's specification > [ OK ] A ruby extension/library package must indicate what it provides with a Provides: ruby(LIBRARY) = VERSION declaration in the spec file $ rpm -qp --provides rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-4.fc16.noarch.rpm rubygem(aeolus-cli) = 0.1.0 rubygem-aeolus-cli = 0.1.0-4.fc16 > [ OK ] The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive; the version of the package must be the Gem's version The source URL for this package is pulled from upstream version control. Instructions are for grabbing the source are documented in the .spec file. There for this complies with the Source URL guidelines. > [ OK ] The package must have a Requires and a BuildRequires on rubygems > [ FAIL ] The package must provide rubygem(%{gemname}) where gemname is the name from the Gem's specification. For every dependency on a Gem named gemdep, the package must contain a Requires on rubygem(%{gemdep}) with the same version constraints as the Gem The package does provide the rubygem: "Provides: rubygem(%{gemname}) = %{version}" However, it does not require the same version as expected: "Requires: rubygem(%{gemname}) = %{version}" It does seem odd for a package to require itself. > [ OK ] The package must own the following files and directories: > %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/ > %{gemdir}/cache/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem > %{gemdir}/specifications/%{gemname}-%{version}.gemspec > [ NA ] Architecture-specific content must not be installed into %{gemdir} > [ OK ] If the Gem only contains pure Ruby code, it must be marked as BuildArch: noarch
OK thank you for the review. Updated package: Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3437829 Spec URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-aeolus-cli.spec SRPM URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-5.fc15.src.rpm > > [ FAIL ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream > > source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. > > If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for how to deal with > > this. > > The instructions included in the .spec for creating the Source URL do not work. > > # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/aeolus/conductor.git > # git checkout next > # cd services/image_factory/aeolus-image > # rake gem > # grab image_factory_console-0.0.1.gem from the pkg subdir > Updated these to reflect the new rubygem-aeolus-cli source location > > [ FAIL ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by > > other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be > > installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely > > upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share > > ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the > > <code>filesystem</code> or <code>man</code> package. If you feel that you have > > a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please > > present that at package review time. (refer to > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership) > > > Transaction Check Error: > file /usr/bin/aeolus-image from install of > rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-4.fc16.noarch conflicts with file from package > rubygem-aeolus-image-0.0.1-5.fc16.noarch > file /usr/share/man/man1/aeolus-image-build.1.gz from install of > rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-4.fc16.noarch conflicts with file from package > rubygem-aeolus-image-0.0.1-5.fc16.noarch > file /usr/share/man/man1/aeolus-image-list.1.gz from install of > rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-4.fc16.noarch conflicts with file from package > rubygem-aeolus-image-0.0.1-5.fc16.noarch > OK this file conflict was fixed w/ the latest version of rubygem-aeolus-image (now in updates-testing). I added the aeolus-image dependency to the aeolus-cli specfile, specifying the minimum version required. > > [ WARN ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as > > described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. > > I have no idea how to test this ... any suggestions? Yes, a surface verification would be to make sure you can run /usr/bin/aeolus-image --help without any errors / segfaults. That is probably good enough for the time being. > > [ FAIL ] The package must provide rubygem(%{gemname}) where gemname is the name from the Gem's specification. For every dependency on a Gem named gemdep, the package must contain a Requires on rubygem(%{gemdep}) with the same version constraints as the Gem > > The package does provide the rubygem: "Provides: rubygem(%{gemname}) = > %{version}" > > However, it does not require the same version as expected: "Requires: > rubygem(%{gemname}) = %{version}" > > It does seem odd for a package to require itself. Note the guidelines state "___for every dependency___ the package must contain a requires..." This dependency is not for the package itself. Believe that take care of everything, again thank you for the review.
(In reply to comment #2) > OK thank you for the review. Updated package: > > Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3437829 > Spec URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-aeolus-cli.spec > SRPM URL: > http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-5.fc15.src.rpm rpmlint checks out okay again. > > > [ FAIL ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream > > > source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. > > > If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for how to deal with > > > this. > > > > The instructions included in the .spec for creating the Source URL do not work. > > > > # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/aeolus/conductor.git > > # git checkout next > > # cd services/image_factory/aeolus-image > > # rake gem > > # grab image_factory_console-0.0.1.gem from the pkg subdir > > > > Updated these to reflect the new rubygem-aeolus-cli source location Works good on an F16 system. It was failing on my f15 box since rubygem-rdoc is not available there. Does 'rubygem-rdoc' need to be a BuildRequires? # git clone git://github.com/aeolusproject/aeolus-image.git # rake gem # grab aeolus-cli-0.1.0.gem from the pkg subdir ./pkg/aeolus-cli-0.1.0.gem > > > [ FAIL ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by > > > other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be > > > installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely > > > upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share > > > ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the > > > <code>filesystem</code> or <code>man</code> package. If you feel that you have > > > a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please > > > present that at package review time. (refer to > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership) > > > > > > Transaction Check Error: > > file /usr/bin/aeolus-image from install of > > rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-4.fc16.noarch conflicts with file from package > > rubygem-aeolus-image-0.0.1-5.fc16.noarch > > file /usr/share/man/man1/aeolus-image-build.1.gz from install of > > rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-4.fc16.noarch conflicts with file from package > > rubygem-aeolus-image-0.0.1-5.fc16.noarch > > file /usr/share/man/man1/aeolus-image-list.1.gz from install of > > rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-4.fc16.noarch conflicts with file from package > > rubygem-aeolus-image-0.0.1-5.fc16.noarch > > > > > OK this file conflict was fixed w/ the latest version of rubygem-aeolus-image > (now in updates-testing). I added the aeolus-image dependency to the aeolus-cli > specfile, specifying the minimum version required. Thanks, this appears to be resolved in the latest version. > > > [ WARN ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as > > > described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. > > > > I have no idea how to test this ... any suggestions? > > > Yes, a surface verification would be to make sure you can run > /usr/bin/aeolus-image --help without any errors / segfaults. That is probably > No obvious problems identified here. > > > [ FAIL ] The package must provide rubygem(%{gemname}) where gemname is the name from the Gem's specification. For every dependency on a Gem named gemdep, the package must contain a Requires on rubygem(%{gemdep}) with the same version constraints as the Gem > > > > The package does provide the rubygem: "Provides: rubygem(%{gemname}) = > > %{version}" > > > > However, it does not require the same version as expected: "Requires: > > rubygem(%{gemname}) = %{version}" > > > > It does seem odd for a package to require itself. > > > Note the guidelines state "___for every dependency___ the package must contain > a requires..." > > This dependency is not for the package itself. That makes a lot more sense :) Some additional comments from a rubygem review that vondruck performed previously ... * Please execute test suite if available upstream. * I would suggest to move following files into -doc subpackage: %{geminstdir}/Gemfile %{geminstdir}/Rakefile %doc %{geminstdir}/minitest %doc %{geminstdir}/test %doc %{geminstdir}/spec %doc %{geminstdir}/%{gemname}.gemspec %doc %{geminstdir}/CHANGELOG.md %doc %{geminstdir}/Guardfile
> > Works good on an F16 system. It was failing on my f15 box since rubygem-rdoc > is not available there. Does 'rubygem-rdoc' need to be a BuildRequires? > No since rubygem-rdoc is just needed to build the sources and the BuildRequires are used to specify the dependencies required to build the package given the sources. > > Some additional comments from a rubygem review that vondruck performed > previously ... > > * Please execute test suite if available upstream. A bit tricky in our case since the test suite contains the tests for rubygem-aeolus-image and rubygem-aeolus-cli (seperate packages). This is not a blocker correct? > * I would suggest to move following files into -doc subpackage: > > %{geminstdir}/Gemfile > %{geminstdir}/Rakefile > %doc %{geminstdir}/minitest > %doc %{geminstdir}/test > %doc %{geminstdir}/spec > %doc %{geminstdir}/%{gemname}.gemspec > %doc %{geminstdir}/CHANGELOG.md > %doc %{geminstdir}/Guardfile Again this is a suggestion and isn't a blocker correct? (any more blockers for approval?). Either way is correct according to the guidelines (%doc macro or doc subpackage) and this can easily be done at any point in the future.
Correct, just suggestions carried forward from another rubygem review request. Completely up to you to implement. For now though ... I approve this package and assert that it meets the Fedora packaging guidelines. Enjoy!
Thank you greatly! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-aeolus-cli Short Description: Command-line interface for working with the Aeolus cloud suite Owners: mmorsi mtaylor Branches: f16 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests). mtaylor is not a valid FAS account, correct account may be added in pkgdb.
rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-5.fc16
Package rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-5.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-5.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-14587 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-5.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.