Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-gettext-package - Localization Library and Tools for Ruby Alias: ruby-gettext-package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237380 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-01 11:09 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > with a single warning from rpmlint: > W: ruby-gettext-package invalid-license Ruby License/LGPL > > This should be LGPL rather than Ruby License/LGPL See the real COPYING text. This is licensed under LGPL or Ruby License. This type of dual license is very common for ruby related modules > > In examining your SPEC file, I see you can collapse some Requires and > BuildRequires using this format: > BuildRequires: irb, ruby-devel, ruby(abi = %{rubyabi} > Requires: irb, ruby(abi) = %{rubyabi} > > rather than: > BuildRequires: irb > BuildRequires: ruby-devel > BuildRequires: ruby(abi) = %{rubyabi} > Requires: ruby(abi) = %{rubyabi} > Requires: irb I _strongly_ recommend the latter style (i.e. my style) and also some other reviewers recommend the latter style * This style makes it easy that what is really changed on taking diff when the dependency is changed. * This style makes diff output smaller. * For this package, the BuildRequires has only 3 packages so the difference is small. However, please consider the case in which one package has 29 BuildRequires...... > I also notice in the SPEC, the %files section has: > %files -f %{name}.lang > You might want to look into using: > %{find_lang} > instead. Already I use %find_lang. Note that there is no %{name}.mo files -------------------------------------------- %find_lang rails %find_lang rgettext %{__cat} *.lang >> %{name}.lang --------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review