Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-http-access2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179940 ------- Additional Comments From oliver.andrich@xxxxxxxxx 2006-02-28 13:25 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > We have a specfile template for Ruby now; it would be best to follow it > especially as it fixes things like %{ruby_sitelib}. Ruby packaging isn't as far > along as Perl or Python so I think it's important that everything is consistent. Well, I supplied the template myself, but havn't applied it yet on this package. Shame on me. :) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180066 I also suggested adding a paragraph concerning ruby to the package naming guidelines the closely follows the python and perl paragraphs. I hope it will be merged into the document soon. > The summary is a bit awkward; suggest changing "Accessing" to "Access" or "A > library for accessing". Okay, understood. I am not a native english speaker, which is the cause of such issues. > I believe the licensing is more complex than just GPL since the package allows > distribution under Ruby's dual license, but I don't know what the common name of > the other license is. Well, I talked about that with the maintainer of the ruby package itself. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179933 If I look at the packaging guidelines and what is stated about licensing information, it is obvious to me, that I have to mark to be licensed under the GPL, cause it is the OSI approved licence. Akira Tagoh (tagoh@xxxxxxxxxx) suggested to use Distributable, as you can see in Ticket 179933. This is the way I want to go. > The specfile template prefers: > > BuildRequires: ruby ruby-devel > Requires: %{ruby_sitelib} > > where %{ruby_sitelib} is defined earlier in the template. This is done as soon as I update to the template. okay. > The package should be BuildArch: noarch as it doesn't produce any binaries. > > Suggest deleting the last line for the description. > > Suggest running the provided tests in a %check section if this is reasonable. > (It probably isn't if this requires network access.) > > Please use %{ruby_sitelib} instead hardcoding the Ruby version in %files. I agree with you and will release a new package tonight. Thanks for checking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
