https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989400 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Sorry for very late response. (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #3) > (In reply to Mamoru TASAKA from comment #2) > > Hello, Thank you for initial comments! > > > > (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #1) > > > Hi Mamoru, > > > > > > Thanks for submitting the package. Here's a couple questions. > > > > > > 1. In %prep, I haven't seen this "tmpunpackdir" convention in many other > > > gems, and I don't see it referenced in the Ruby packaging guidelines. If > > > this convention is necessary for mini_portile, could you please add a > > > comment to the .spec file indicating why this is necessary? > > > > This is my convension, to explicitly clarify that unpacking gem file is > > done under the directory created by %setup -q -c -T > > (i.e. to make it sure that no files are left after %clean is done: > > using %setup after unpacking gem is confusing, and I remember that > > old rpm unpacked source on unexpected directory when %setup was not > > yet called) > > That is good convention. We should similarly update the packaging > guidelines. Although it would be worth of some macros, since the things gets > a bit ugly. "That" is _my_ ? Anyway actually old rpm behavior _does_ cause issues when %setup is not done beforehand, now I really recalled this: http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-February/msg02054.html It is much preferable that * %setup is done first * all %prep action is guaranteed to be done under the directory that %prep is created And I don't think this is a blocker. > > > 3. From what I read in the current Ruby packaging guidelines, "gem build" is > > > supposed to happen in %build. In your package, it happens in %prep. If there > > > is a reason for this deviation, can you please clarify it in a comment in > > > the .spec? > > > > Because I clean up tmpunpack dir. Here I want to make it sure that no > > garbage files are left. (note that gem build is to repackage gem, and not > > building something actually) > > This is related to first point and it does not matter in which section the > "build" is done. See above. > > > 5. Regarding these lines: > > > > > > # Currently no useful > > > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/examples/ > > > > > > The comment should read "Currently not useful". Also, can you please expand > > > the comment to explain why it would not be useful to ship the example > > > Rakefile in that directory? > > > > Rakefile is something like "Makefile" on autotool-based tarballs, which we > > don't usually package into binary rpms (also calling "rake" is discouraged > > in current guideline) > > This is example in its real sense, i.e. it pretty much corresponds with > appropriate section of README.rdoc [1] and it is out of question that it > should stay in -doc subpackage. Yeah, this is really "example" Rakefile, good to be in -doc. I will fix this when I import this into Fedora git (unless there is anything to be fixed beforehand) -- 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=39fRYmKMPU&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review