[Bug 771297] Review Request: rubygem-bluecloth - A Ruby implementation of John Gruber's Markdown

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771297

Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?



--- Comment #7 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
* Remove BuildRoot
  - BuildRoot is not needed, unles you plan to ship this in EPE5 (but in that
    case, you miss a whole lot of stuff there ;)

* Remove %clean section
  - Not needed anymore.

* Use the library from %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}/lib/
  - I.e. you should replace:

    - mv %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}/ext/bluecloth_ext.so \
        %{buildroot}%{gem_extdir_mri}/ext/%{gem_name}/
    + mv %{buildroot}%{gem_libdir}/bluecloth_ext.so \
        %{buildroot}%{gem_extdir_mri}/ext/%{gem_name}/

* man pages
  - Do not compress man pages. That should be done automatically by build
system
  - Refer them as "%doc %{_mandir}/man1/*" in %files section should be
    enough.

* Directory ownership
  - %{gem_instdir} is not owned. Please uncomment the "%dir %{gem_instdir}"
    macro.

* Mark documentation by %doc macro
  - Documentation should be marked by %doc macro. I am referring to the
    following files:

      %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE
      %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE.discount
      %{gem_instdir}/README.rdoc
      %{gem_instdir}/History.rdoc
      %{gem_instdir}/Manifest.txt
      %{gem_instdir}/bluecloth.1.pod

* Do not BR: rubygem(hoe)
  - Not sure why are you requiring it.

* Test suite
  - It is definitely not RSpec 1.x only. It runs quite OK with RSpec 2.x.
    There fails only several specs from spec/markdowntest_spec.rb, due to
    missing tidy-ext. Please omit just the failing tests.

* License
  - Not sure about the licenses though. This is the licensecheck output:

    $ licensecheck LICENSE
    LICENSE: BSD (2 clause)

    $ licensecheck LICENSE.discount 
    LICENSE.discount: MIT/X11 (BSD like)

  - However, the both looks more like BSD then MIT. Could you please check with
    Fedora Legal?

-- 
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=vJcH4FkHvA&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
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]