https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982679 --- Comment #3 from Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Axilleas Pipinellis from comment #2) > (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? > I believe you are correct. It isn't bundling if this is the package that is supposed to supply ... whatever it is we are bundling. (In this case, the Twitter bootstrap in Saas form.) > > "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. > You are correct again. Use Twitter in the summary if you wish, because as you said, this is the Twitter bootstrap, not some other bootstrap. As for the description being different than what is defined in the upstream gemspec. Yes, you can change it. Especially when the summary and description are the same. Feel free to expand the description, or shrink the summary. > On a separate note, I realized that Dan had included two patches in his > spec, but I haven't checked if they are needed... > Two patches and a sed to gemspec. I'm pretty sure the sed and the first patch are needed if this is going to go into EPEL and/or Fedora 18. I don't know about the second patch. -- 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=Q5Z9NQFjzU&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review