https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121082 --- Comment #3 from Josef Stribny <jstribny@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > 1) missing license text (some MIT variants even require to distribute it with > the sources), upstream needs to be notified; the good thing is the README > links to exact MIT variant True, I asked the upstream to include it[1]. > 2) missing man-pages: packagers should work with upstream to add them, but it > is not strictly required by guidelines Yes, that would be nice. Do you have the source file for the man page? For example I used asciidoc format in sdoc man pages. Or did you really wrote this man page as it is? I would rather submit the source to upstream. Nevertheless, I included your man page in the spec file. Depending on your answer I will submit it to upstream and link the issue. >3) you could prepare commented out exact steps in %check, for minitest I have > seen this magic formula in the ruby list: Well, you are combing RPM packaged gems with upstream ones. Of course you can also run only upstream test suite with every gem which is why I don't see the reason to put it there. When we have everything in Fedora, I would add the proper check section. 4) cosmetic: timestamp of the source gem in .src.rpm should be rather 2014-07-05 I admit that I don't really care about this much. Would that affect Fedora users somehow? Most of us download .gem files from RubyGems.org by `gem fetch` command. Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-clockwork.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-clockwork-0.7.7-2.fc22.src.rpm [1] https://github.com/tomykaira/clockwork/issues/116 -- 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