https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244764 --- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Ok, thx for update. I have a few nitpicks: * Execute the test suite in .%{gem_instdir} - Let me explain. Although with current guidelines and for this particular gem the test suite execution works as you did, it is generally better to execute the test suite in .%{gem_instdir}, e.g. the %check section should looks like: pushd .%{gem_instdir} rspec -Ilib spec popd The reason for this is that the current directory contains just the content of "gem unpack" command executed in %prep section, while the .%{gem_instdir} contains the content after installation. Although it is usually the same for noarch gems, for gems with binary extensions, the .%{gem_instdir} contains also the build extension, etc. It is also backward compatible practice from days, we have not used "gem unpack" command. * Exclude %{gem_instdir}/diffy.gemspec - I would suggest to exclude the diffy.gemspec from the resulting package, since: 1) It has no meaning. 2) What is worser, it is not the original copy of the file originally shipped with the package, but this copy was created by the "gem spec" command. BTW it is good habit to include Koji scratch build results ("$ fedpkg --dist f24 scratch-build --srpm"), to show that the package successfully builds in Fedora, e.g: Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10426046 This is first good sign for package reviewer :) Otherwise, the package looks good. Prior I sponsor you, could you please fix appropriately our other packages you submitted for a review and also link some informal review of some other package you did? Thank you. -- 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