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=719958 --- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-29 03:54:43 EST --- Thank you for your review. (In reply to comment #7) > Well, > > * Description > - I think the %description section can be expanded to be > more illustrative, as in "README" file or on the URL. You are right. Upstream was not overly verbose in gem description. I'll take the first paragraph of the README. > * Documents > - I think "README" should be in the main rpm, because it > says "README". Unfortunately there is no guideline which specifies this. I usually keep README in the main package only if it is the only source of license information. However this gem has COPYING file attached, therefore I decided to move everything into -doc subpackage. > - Maybe "CHANGES" can also in the main package Similarly to above. I personally prefer online documentation, therefore I am fan of -doc subpackages and deferring as much files as I can into it. > * "gem" command usage > - I prefert to use "gem -V" (verbose mode), however not a blocker I do consider this flag important only for binary gems. Otherwise it add unnecessary clutter into the log, which may hide more important things. -- 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