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=746438 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-28 09:10:16 EST --- Thank you for comments. I will update my package later. For now only replying to your comments. (In reply to comment #1) > * Update to the latest version > - Time is passing fast, could you please update to the latest version? - Will do later. > * Is it worth of including ruby- subpackage? > - Isn't this re-review good opportunity to get rid of the ruby- subpackage? > The design is flawed IMO and doesn't bring anything of benefit for users. - Still packages rebuilt from ruby-gnome2 srpm needs this. Note that ruby-gnome2 uses ruby-gnome2-all "tarball", not gem, and ruby modules built from ruby-gnome2-all tarball needs ruby-cairo module and so on. > * Remove the -devel subpackage. > - Is the -devel package required? Will somebody prepare some other library > with > binary extension which will depend on cairo? What is your opinion? - Actually, for example: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=rubygem-gtk2.git;a=blob;f=rubygem-gtk2.spec > * defattr macros are no longer necessary > - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions - Will remove. > * Use ruby(rubygems) virtual provide preferably - Well, for "BR (or R) rubygems" (not rubygem-foo), I decided not to impose me (and other packagers) to change it to ruby(rubygems) - as actually (except for %check section) what we use here is gem "command" (i.e. /usr/bin/gem) and we don't use rubygem "module" (i.e. we don't use 'require "rubygems"' here). So currently I think writing "BR: rubygems" is more proper. > * The license should be Ruby or GPLv2 > - Since the COPYING file states "distributed under the same conditions as > ruby", > the license should be adjusted appropriately. - Note that /usr/share/doc/ruby-libs-1.8.7.352/COPYING (in ruby-libs-1.8.7.352-3.fc17.i686) says: ------------------------------------------------------- You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL *version 2* (see the file GPL), or the conditions below: ------------------------------------------------------- (the explicit *version 2* is here) and this COPYING file says: ------------------------------------------------------- You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL (see the file GPL), or the conditions below: ------------------------------------------------------- So these are in fact slightly different. This type of difference actually appear on many ruby gems. How we should interpret may be ambiguous, however for now for this case I distinguish between "GPLv2 or Ruby" and "GPL+ or Ruby". -- 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