https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982679 --- Comment #2 from Axilleas Pipinellis <axilleas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Troy Dawson from comment #1) > I'm working on a review, but I have two questions. > > Bundling: > It has a /vendor/ directory, that has the twitter bootstrap code in it. > Normally this screams "bundling". > But, this is what it says in the packaging guidelines > "At this time JavaScript intended to be served to a web browser on another > computer is specifically exempted from this but this will likely change in > the future." > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries > I guess we could ship the vendor/assets/{javascripts,images} in the doc subpackage, since they provide the same files as Twitter's bootstrap. Or exclude them completely, although am in favor of the subpackage approach. As for the css, Twitter ships its files in less whereas bootstrap-sass is in sass, so I think it's safe to say that vendor/assets/stylesheets is not considered as duplicate. That's what this package is after all, right? > "Twitter" in the summary and description: > I'm always nervous about putting a trademarked name in a summary and/or > description. I liked what a previous review attempt had for theirs. > https://raw.github.com/mojavelinux/rubygem-bootstrap-sass-rpm/master/rubygem- > bootstrap-sass.spec > It is Twitter that introduced this framework and the title kinda distincts it from the classic bootstrap definition[0], but I guess the first thing that comes to mind when saying bootstrap in our geek world, is Twitter. So, picking a less "invasive" description is fine by me :) I just didn't know that we could use a description different than what is defined in the gemspec by upstream. On a separate note, I realized that Dan had included two patches in his spec, but I haven't checked if they are needed... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MGwAAn0giP&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review