https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892314 Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #5 from Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Sorry for delay. http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/mechanize-related/rubygem-unf_ext.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/mechanize-related/rubygem-unf_ext-0.0.6-2.fc.src.rpm * Wed Sep 25 2013 Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.6-2 - Misc fix (In reply to Josef Stribny from comment #4) > 1, Description of -doc subpackage should end with a dot (.) according to > guidelines. - Fixed. > > 2, %doc %{gem_instdir}/[A-Z]* seems too vague to me, please mention README > and LICENSE explicitly so it's clear that they are present. - I prefer this (note that similarly we usually just write %gem_libdir and not write %files list verbosely more, %files list verboseness matters to some degree, however I don't think it is needed for this case) > 3, Gemfile, Rakefile and original .gemspec could be kept in -doc for > clarification rather than excluded. - Oppositely I usually ask / suggest people to exclude these files. These are not used, Gemfile and Rakefile are like Makefiles for autotools based tarball, which we won't add in binary rpms. > 4, Keep the test suite in doc rather than excluding it. - This is against current Ruby guidelines (current Ruby guideline says explicitly that test files should not be packaged), and also for this case I don't see the usefulness of test suite files for normal users. -- 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=xOU45Ar58q&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review