Spec URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/mechanize-related/rubygem-unf_ext.spec SRPM URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/mechanize-related/rubygem-unf_ext-0.0.5-1.fc.src.rpm Description: Unicode Normalization Form support library for CRuby. Fedora Account System Username: mtasaka Koji scratch build F-19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4843415 F-18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4843418
http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/mechanize-related/rubygem-unf_ext.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/mechanize-related/rubygem-unf_ext-0.0.6-1.fc.src.rpm * Fri Mar 22 2013 Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> - 0.0.6-1 - 0.0.6 - Support new ruby packaging guideline Koji scratch build F-20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5155375 F-19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5155376 F-18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5155377
Still builds: F-20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5311531 F-19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5311534 F-18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5311537
Taking.
1, Description of -doc subpackage should end with a dot (.) according to guidelines. 2, %doc %{gem_instdir}/[A-Z]* seems too vague to me, please mention README and LICENSE explicitly so it's clear that they are present. 3, Gemfile, Rakefile and original .gemspec could be kept in -doc for clarification rather than excluded. 4, Keep the test suite in doc rather than excluding it. Otherwise the package builds, installs and runs, rpmlint doesn't complain. Please fix the issues 1, 2 and 4, and consider no. 3 so I can approve.
Sorry for delay. http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/mechanize-related/rubygem-unf_ext.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/mechanize-related/rubygem-unf_ext-0.0.6-2.fc.src.rpm * Wed Sep 25 2013 Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> - 0.0.6-2 - Misc fix (In reply to Josef Stribny from comment #4) > 1, Description of -doc subpackage should end with a dot (.) according to > guidelines. - Fixed. > > 2, %doc %{gem_instdir}/[A-Z]* seems too vague to me, please mention README > and LICENSE explicitly so it's clear that they are present. - I prefer this (note that similarly we usually just write %gem_libdir and not write %files list verbosely more, %files list verboseness matters to some degree, however I don't think it is needed for this case) > 3, Gemfile, Rakefile and original .gemspec could be kept in -doc for > clarification rather than excluded. - Oppositely I usually ask / suggest people to exclude these files. These are not used, Gemfile and Rakefile are like Makefiles for autotools based tarball, which we won't add in binary rpms. > 4, Keep the test suite in doc rather than excluding it. - This is against current Ruby guidelines (current Ruby guideline says explicitly that test files should not be packaged), and also for this case I don't see the usefulness of test suite files for normal users.
Well, I sort of expected you to disagree. I know that some of the issues above are kind of argumental and not forced by guidelines. With "[A-Z]*" one never knows looking on the spec file if the README/LICENSE is there or not, and those two are kind of important. The guidelines request to include license file in the main package, but this way, it's unclear. Imagine when you make a simple update of the .gem (or some proven packager makes it) then you wouldn't notice that license file is suddenly gone, because upstream decided not to ship it anymore. For the rest, I prefer the opposite, but it's true it's not explicitly in the guidelines. For me, tests or Gemfile, are also the documentation, they document how the gem works/is expected to work, with what deps is tested etc. Since we sometimes make a lot of patching in Fedora, I believe it's worth including for clarification. I APPROVE the package, but I strongly recommend to list the license file separately before pushing. For the rest, I understand your point of view. Thank you.
Okay, thank you! Note that as you see this review request blocks other review requests (of mine, as shown in the dependency tree), so review swaps are still welcomed. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-unf_ext Short Description: Unicode Normalization Form support library for CRuby Owners: mtasaka Branches: f18 f19 f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Rebuilt for all branches, push requested for F-20, closing. Thank you for reviewing and git procedure.