[Bug 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560

Moses Mendoza <moses@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |moses@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--- Comment #32 from Moses Mendoza <moses@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Hi all, I thought I might and try help out on this one..

I updated the spec with what I could gather were the most recent requested
changes, which were to use %{ruby_sitearch} for arch specific files for EPEL
and Fedora < 17, remove the symlinking, and to set %gem_dir via %(ruby
-rubygems -e 'puts Gem::dir' 2>/dev/null). I also updated for upstream 2.1.4.

Regarding the license difficulty, I contacted the upstream maintainer, and he
now is considering a change to split out the license into a separate license
file, and add an explicit "OR the Public Domain license". I'll update when I
hear more, he said he's get back to me soon.

One thing I wasn't certain of, given how the .so files are moved based on the
target, is how best to compose the *.so's in the %files section. Currently I
set it up in a nested conditional, but I'm not sure that's good style, so
feedback much appreciated.

srpm:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/rubygemshadow/rubygem-ruby-shadow-2.1.4-1.fc16.src.rpm
spec:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/rubygemshadow/rubygem-ruby-shadow.spec

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]