Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588692 --- Comment #2 from Michal Fojtik <mfojtik@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-05 06:33:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Did a formal review, looks good for the most part save one major blocker > > * The current spec will not build at all unless following: pushd %{geminstdir} > is changed to: pushd %{buildroot}%{geminstdir} > in the %check section, which fixes the error I was getting: > pushd: /usr/lib64/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rerun-0.5.2: No such file or directory Thank you! I've fixed this. > * rpmlint on the SRPM / Spec yields > - rubygem-rerun.src: W: no-buildroot-tag > The BuildRoot tag isn't used in your spec. It must be used in order to allow > building the package as non root on some systems. For some rpm versions (e.g. > rpm.org >= 4.6) the BuildRoot tag is not necessary in specfiles and is ignored > by rpmbuild; if your package is only going to be built with such rpm versions > you can ignore this warning. > > Adding the following to the spec solves this: > BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) > > Note, BuildRoot is no longer required/used, > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag but this is > the only way to remove this warning AFAIK. Thus either way, this is not a > blocker for approval. Last time I submitted a review request, I got notice that now is preferred to not use BuildRoot. So for now I keeping this specfile without this. > * rpmlint on the rpm itself spits out a bunch of macro warnings by mistake, eg > rubygem-rerun.noarch: W: misspelled-macro > /usr/lib64/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/rerun-0.5.2/ri/Rerun/Runner/running%3f-i.yaml %3f > > This can be ignored, eg not a blocker, though these can easily be removed by > simply adding the "--no-ri" flag to the "gem install" command in the spec (the > rdoc documentation will still be generated) Fixed. (I added --no-ri) > * And as far as docs go, there are enough to warrant a separate > rubygem-rerun-doc subpackage, though once again not a blocker for approval I preffer to keep docs in same package. That is an ussual way howto deal with RDoc generated documentation. Updated files: Spec URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-rerun.spec SRPM URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-rerun-0.5.2-2.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review