https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052283 --- Comment #5 from Mo Morsi <mmorsi@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks. Final updated package: Spec: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/rubygem-more_core_extensions.spec SRPM: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/rubygem-more_core_extensions-1.2.0-2.fc20.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8332003 New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-more_core_extensions Short Description: Set of core extensions beyond those provided by ActiveSupport Upstream URL: https://github.com/ManageIQ/more_core_extensions Owners: mmorsi Branches: f21 f20 InitialCC: (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #3) > Hi Mo, > > Please accept my apologies at taking so long to get back on this. Here's my > review. Package is APPROVED. > > The following comments are not blockers, but suggestions: > > - You can strip out the boilerplate gem2rpm comment about > more_core_extensions-1.2.0.gem at the top of the file, since this is going > to go stale. Done > > - rpmlint doesn't like the length of the Summary field. For some reason I > have a vague memory that the Summary field is not supposed to contain the > name of the package... but I can't find the guideline for that at the > moment. At any rate, you could shorten the Summary to simply "Set of core > extensions beyond those provided by ActiveSupport". That should fix the > "summary-to-long" rpmlint error. (This could be fixed in the gemspec > upstream as well :) Done > > - No need to BuildRequires: ruby when you've already got BuildRequires: > ruby(release). BR: ruby is only for gems that can only work on MRI. > Done > - The coveralls and rspec BRs are commented out, and I'm not sure why they > are commented. It seems like you should be able to run the test suite, > right? The %check section is blank (it's just the default boilerplate from > gem2rpm). > There are a few broken specs reported upstream and seems to be a few more when run against the latest gem stack in rawhide. Leaving these as ommitted for the time being until the situation can be resolved. > - With the changes in the Fedora 21 Ruby Packaging guidelines, you don't > have to provide explicit Requires or Provides any more for rubygem packages. > For backwards compatibility with Fedora 20 and RHEL 7, you can wrap your > Requires and Provides like so: > > %if 0%{?fc19} || 0%{?fc20} || 0%{?el7} > Requires: ruby(release) > Requires: ruby(rubygems) > Requires: rubygem(activesupport) > 3.2 > %endif > > %if 0%{?fc19} || 0%{?fc20} || 0%{?el7} > Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version} > %endif > > And then just strip out each dist conditional as Fedora 19 goes EOL, then > Fedora 20, etc. Done > > - The %license macro has not yet been adopted as a requirement by the > Packaging Committee, but you can start to use it now, with a > backwards-compatible shim, like so: > > %files > %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc} > %dir %{gem_instdir} > %license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE.txt Done > > - In the %changelog section, your name is listed as "mmorsi", and this > should be "Mo Morsi". (You might want to check the output of the > rpmdev-packager utility on your box to be sure this is doing the Right > Thing.) Seems to be correct. > > - The %{gem_instdir}/spec directory should not be marked as "%doc" since the > code there is not documentation. Done. Again thx for review. -- 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