Spec URL: http://axilleas.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-tins/rubygem-tins.spec SRPM URL: http://axilleas.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-tins/rubygem-tins-0.8.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: All the stuff that isn't good/big enough for a real library. Fedora Account System Username: axilleas
I will take it for a review.
1, Please remove the trailing white space: * after BuildRequires: rubygems-devel * after BuildRequires: rubygem(test-unit) 2, Please put the dot at the end of -doc subpackage description 3, Should the license be "X11 or MIT" (taken from the README)? Since only MIT is included as a standalone file and in the .gemspec, it's probably better to list only MIT. Maybe you can ask upstream for clarification? Otherwise the spec is alright, it builds, installs and runs, rpmlint doesn't complaint and the issues mentioned above are minor so I am APPROVING the package. Please resolve the issues above before pushing.
(In reply to Josef Stribny from comment #2) > 1, Please remove the trailing white space: > * after BuildRequires: rubygems-devel > * after BuildRequires: rubygem(test-unit) > Hmm, for some reason these are from gem2rpm, fixed. > 2, Please put the dot at the end of -doc subpackage description > Fixed. > 3, Should the license be "X11 or MIT" (taken from the README)? Since only > MIT is included as a standalone file and in the .gemspec, it's probably > better to list only MIT. Maybe you can ask upstream for clarification? I filled an issue: https://github.com/flori/tins/issues/5
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-tins Short Description: Useful tools library in Ruby Owners: axilleas Branches: f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
(In reply to Axilleas Pipinellis from comment #3) > (In reply to Josef Stribny from comment #2) > > 1, Please remove the trailing white space: > > * after BuildRequires: rubygems-devel > > * after BuildRequires: rubygem(test-unit) > > > > Hmm, for some reason these are from gem2rpm, fixed. Yes, that is gem2rpm thing. There might be appended version, in that case there would be space between the BR and version, since there is no version, just the space remains. Fix polishing this behavior is appreciated, but I have not come up yet with any solution I would like mysel > > 3, Should the license be "X11 or MIT" (taken from the README)? Since only > > MIT is included as a standalone file and in the .gemspec, it's probably > > better to list only MIT. Maybe you can ask upstream for clarification? > > I filled an issue: https://github.com/flori/tins/issues/5 They are the same license, MIT for is the right one for Fedora. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Software_License_List
A(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #6) > > > > 3, Should the license be "X11 or MIT" (taken from the README)? Since only > > > MIT is included as a standalone file and in the .gemspec, it's probably > > > better to list only MIT. Maybe you can ask upstream for clarification? > > > > I filled an issue: https://github.com/flori/tins/issues/5 > > They are the same license, MIT for is the right one for Fedora. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Software_License_List Anyhow, the author was kind enough to release a 0.8.4 version, which clarifies the license :)
At least please fix changelog.
Crap, I forgot it. How should I fix it now? I should do a version bump for it to rebuild and get the change to the repos, right? Should I add two more changelogs, one about the version update (0.8.4-1) and another one (0.8.4-2) about the previous forgotten changelog?
As this package has not pushed into F-19 stable yet, it is much better to bumping release, fixing changelog than to leave inconsistent changelog. Leaving this unfixed makes it harder to fix this later.
Axilleas, you can now push the build into the stable and close this bug. BTW, since you pushed the update into stable Fedora via Bodhi, it is good to reverence this ticket there. Bodhi would take care about this BZ and closed it for you.
Hmm, I thought I did in the package update submission but seems I missed it... I pushed it to stable, thanks for reminding.
Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-tins Short Description: Useful tools library in Ruby Owners: hpejakle Branches: el6 el5 InitialCC: axilleas
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: rubygem-tins Short Description: Useful tools library in Ruby Owners: hpejakle Branches: el6 el5 InitialCC: axilleas
Git done (by process-git-requests). Corrected branch formatting.