https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786249 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkabrda@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #12 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkabrda@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Sorry for the delay, here are my comments: - Is Requires: puppet really needed? Isn't it possible to lint the puppet files without actually having puppet installed? - BuildRequires: rubygem(rspec-core) should be BuildRequires: rubygem(rspec) from F17 and above. - BuildRequires: rubygem(rdoc) is not necessary, rdoc gets automatically drawn in by rubygems, that generate the documentation. - Some files should be moved to -doc subpackage. The rule of thumb we use here is: if it is not needed for runtime, put it in the -doc subpackage. Moreover, the packages that actually are documentation, like rdoc files or README, should still be marked %doc even in the subpackage. Other files, as Rakefile, should be moved to -doc subpackage while not being marked as %doc. LICENSE should be marked as %doc, but should stay in the main package. So please move Rakefile, spec and README to -doc subpackage. - It is customary (but not required) not to remove the %{buildroot}/%{gem_instdir}/.*, but %exclude them in the file listing (consider this a nice-to-have, certainly not a blocker). - %{buildroot}/%{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec file is usually kept in the package and placed in the -doc, while not being marked as %doc :) Please post the new spec/srpm. The package looks good in overall, so I think there will be no further problems when you fix the ones above. -- 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