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=798248 --- Comment #6 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkabrda@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-09 05:53:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > > - As for the provides/obsoletes of virtual provides, I have discussed with two > > proven packagers and they agreed, that the proper way is to obsolete and > > provide both the package name and its virtual provide (which was ruby(dbus) = > > %{version}). So the proper tags for this package should be (already in the > > updated spec): > > > > Provides: ruby(dbus) = %{version} > > Provides: ruby-dbus = %{version}-%{release} > > Obsoletes: ruby(dbus) < 0.3.0 > > Obsoletes: ruby-dbus < 0.3.0-5 > > There should be used "Obsoletes: ruby(dbus) <= 0.3.0", since you want to > obsolete ruby(dbus) includeing 0.3.0 version. The ruby-dbus obsolete should be > fine, since the version is higher that any version which was released. > You are absolutely right, my mistake. > * %{gem_instdir}/doc should be marked as %doc, also the examples might be > considered as a doc? I leave it up to you. Good point. Will do. > > Otherwise the package looks good => APPROVED. > > Please fix the two minor issues mentioned above prior committing and don't > forget to retire the ruby-dbus package properly. Thank you for your review! -- 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