https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146 --- Comment #3 from Julian C. Dunn <jdunn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2) > * Patches are missing comments > - Your .spec file contains 4 patches. It would be nice to comment them what > they are good for, why they are not upstream. For example, Patch3 seems > to > be fixing compatibility with RSpec 2.x, while upstream is using RSpec 3.x > already. > > * libyaml2 gem dependency > - I have to say, I am disappointed with this way of bundling, although not > sure if you can do something about it, since this is upstream issue, but > I > must point this out. > > I'd call your patches substantial. The biggest change is that you > completely > drop the dependency on libyajl2, that means if somebody is sharing > Gemfile.lock (and we can put aside if this is good idea or not), their > dependencies will differ for Fedoras version of ffi-libyaml in > comparison to > original gems. So I have already had this discussion with upstream. The vendoring (or not) of the C library is all within the separate libyajl2 gem, to abstract that away. I can separately package that gem as rubygem-libyajl2 with the vendoring turned off (it's supported by upstream) instead of doing it the way I have done; would that be acceptable, to maintain the existing dependency tree? The only reason I did it this way is because at this point the rubygem-libyajl2 package becomes a complete no-op and is only used to satisfy gem deps. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review