https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #31 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi, I have step in :) (In reply to comment #26) > rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro > /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.1/ri/SSHKey/valid_ssh_public_key%3f-c.ri %3f > > Using ? in an API name doesn't seem to make much sense (the decoded %3f). > Is there some rationale for upstream using this in the documentation name? > I'd generally say this is not a valid character for a filename. > > Please work with upstream to fix this problem. If this is a common issue > with ruby libraries, please file an rpmlint bug in bugzilla with the idea > that % encoding in RI doc files should be ignored. This is common issue and I don't think upstream is going to change it, since they would need to change whole concept and it would break backward compatibility. > rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.1/ri/cache.ri > > Something about this file is wrong - it may be that the file is encoded in > DOS format when it should be encoded in non-dos format. See: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line- > encoding > > Please work with upstream to resolve these issues - they will annoy all > distributions, not just Fedora. The RI files are actually binary files, created using Ruby's Marshal.dump. So this is false positive. > Still these issues are not blockers, since the ? is escaped in the filename > and passes UTF-8 encoding. And the other issue really looks like an > upstream issue. If this is not an upstream issue, please file an rpmlint > bug if this is standard operation in Ruby applications so that rpmlint can > be improved. Both checks should be fixed in rpmlint and they are on my TODO list. -- 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