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=683790 --- Comment #3 from Bohuslav Kabrda <bkabrda@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-14 07:51:23 EDT --- - License is MIT. - The defined %ruby_sitelib macro is never used, so please remove it. - You should use %global instead of %define, according to [1]. - You don't need to specify BuildRoot tag, see [2] - Could you explain the Requires: rubygem(rubyforge) and Requires: rubygem(gemcutter)? I don't see why the library wouldn't work without them. - Simlarly, can you explain the BuildRequires: rubygem(yard)? I don't see what you need yard for during the build. - You don't need to use the "%defattr(-, root, root, -)" line, see [3] - Consider moving documentation into a subpackage (except of README.rdoc, which contains licensing info and therefore should be left in the main package). - rpmbuild complains about History.rdoc and Manifest.txt listed twice. To solve it: ** the package shouldn't own the whole %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/ directory (BTW you can use %{geminstdir} instead of it), but should rather own %dir %{geminstdir} ** when you do that, you will need to add every subdirectory and file in %{geminstdir} to %files, but you will be able to avoid the complaints about files listed twice [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions -- 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