https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121082 --- Comment #4 from František Dvořák <valtri@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Josef Stribny from comment #3) > > 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. > Yes, I wrote it directly. Of course using some preferred ruby way instead would be also possible improvement. > >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. > Yes, I liked the idea have to have it ready in .spec just to uncomment, but that's really up to package maintainer. :-) > 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. > Right, that's just cosmetic and I don't think it will affect anything. -- 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