I'll take it for a review.

* Use %global instead of %define
  - Unless there is any special need, the %global macro should be used in place
    of %define according to FPG [1]

* Test suite
  - It would be nice to execute a test suite of the gem.

* License
  - According to README.md and MIT-LICENSE files, the license should be MIT

* -doc subpackage
  - Have you considered to move the documentation into -doc subpackage?

* Please use the new RubyGems packaging macros [2]
  - It would be nice to use the macros available for gem packaging.
  - For RHEL, you can use [3] as an example and optionally comment on Bug 788001
    to push these macros into RHEL ;)

* RHEL and older Fedora release conditioning
  - Please consider to use "%if 0%{?el6}%{?fc16}" macros instead of wordy
    "%if 0%{?rhel} == 6 || 0%{?fedora} < 17"

* Exclude gemcache
  - We typically exclude the cached version of gem, such as:
      %exclude %{gem_cache}


I would stop at this point and wait for fixes from your side. Thank you.


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Macros
[3] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rubygem-hydra.git/tree/rubygem-hydra.spec

Updated:
Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-hashr/rubygem-hashr.spec
SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-hashr/rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-2.fc17.src.rpm

Fixed:
* Use %global instead of %define
* Test suite
* License
* -doc subpackage
* Please use the new RubyGems packaging macros

ad /Please consider to use "%if 0%{?el6}%{?fc16}" macros instead of wordy
    "%if 0%{?rhel} == 6 || 0%{?fedora} < 17"/
I do not like the shorter notation. It is less readable and thefore maintainable (of course IMHO).
And while 0%{?fedora} < 17 works for Fedora 15, shorter notation %{?fc16}. I know that F15 is not supported, but still.. I simply like the longer notation.

* Exclude gemcache
per our IRC discussion I will keep it here. I like the sideefect of repackaging, where - in case package will get patch - the repackage gem contains those patch(es) and developers, which develop for Fedora on their macs, can use this gem, which contains these patch(es).

(In reply to comment #3)
> Fixed:
> * Use %global instead of %define
> * Test suite
> * License
> * -doc subpackage
> * Please use the new RubyGems packaging macros

Thank you.
 
> ad /Please consider to use "%if 0%{?el6}%{?fc16}" macros instead of wordy
>     "%if 0%{?rhel} == 6 || 0%{?fedora} < 17"/
> I do not like the shorter notation. It is less readable and thefore
> maintainable (of course IMHO).
> And while 0%{?fedora} < 17 works for Fedora 15, shorter notation %{?fc16}. I
> know that F15 is not supported, but still.. I simply like the longer
> notation.

Ok, no problem.

> * Exclude gemcache
> per our IRC discussion I will keep it here. I like the sideefect of
> repackaging, where - in case package will get patch - the repackage gem
> contains those patch(es) and developers, which develop for Fedora on their
> macs, can use this gem, which contains these patch(es).

This is not show stopper, but something which should be re-discussed at Ruby-SIG. Any input is welcome. 


* Do not own the whole %{gem_instdir}
  - I would suggest to be more specific and instead of %{gem_instdir} use
    %dir %{gem_instdir}. This is a bit more work, but it will allow you to spot
    some major changes when updating the gem.
  - This is not show stopper, but I'd like you to consider it.

* Test suite execution
  - You can simplify the test suite execution command:

    testrb -Ilib test/*_test.rb"

* Non-essential files should be moved to -doc subpackage
  - Please move the test suite into -doc subpackage, since it is not needed for
    runtime
  - Please move Gemfile*, Rakefile and README.md as well

* The -doc subpackage should require the main package
  - Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

Thank you for your suggestion, I really appreciate it.

All issues should be addressed:
Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-hashr/rubygem-hashr.spec
SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-hashr/rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-3.fc17.src.rpm

I have no other concerns => APPROVED

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-hashr
Short Description: Simple Hash extension to make working with nested hashes
Owners: msuchy
Branches: F-18, F-17, F-16, EL-6
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Build for Fedora 19
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4371819

rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-3.fc17

rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-3.fc16

rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-3.el6

rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.