https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064 --- Comment #35 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #34) > Apologies for the confusion. It was certainly my intention to bump the spec. > > SRPM: > http://brenton.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-openshift-origin- > common/201208150950/rubygem-openshift-origin-common-0.13.3-6.fc18.src.rpm > > Spec: > http://brenton.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-openshift-origin- > common/201208150950/rubygem-openshift-origin-common.spec > > To avoid the "files listed twice" warning I actually just removed the > LICENSE and COPYRIGHT from the files section. That way they will get > shipped in the gem_instdir. If that's not what you meant just let me know. Yes, that better. Actually, I always suggest to own just the gem directory, such as: %dir %{gem_instdir} or in your case: %dir %{gem_dir}/doc/%{gem_name}-%{version} This is a bit more work, since you will need to explicitly own the directory content as well, but it will pay of later, because you will be warned about bigger changes in you package. > As for the macros provided by rubygems-devel, my main problem with using > them is that I'm also planning to maintain this package for EPEL soon and it > seems like it would needlessly complicate the specfile for now since those > macros aren't available for RHEL yet. I understand your rationale. And that is the beauty of the example I shown you above. Once the macros are available in the RHEL, you would be able to drop just a few macro definitions on the top of the file instead of rewriting every macro scattered around the file. BTW why do you keep the SELinux directory in the package? Moreover why do you own just its content and not the directory? -- 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