https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242056 --- Comment #12 from Paulo Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Athos, Please comment on this: W: simplecov not installed, we won't have a coverage report maybe it needs this build requires? rubygem-simplecov.noarch : Code coverage analysis tool for Ruby 1.9 There is also this issue: https://rubygems.org/gems/chake-0.13.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6a3ae97b0efbc40eed8de527c5345ecfea2786c8ef327a46cd5f8bbe9102897e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d3726ddb2293edc6ad056272cb9ef2f159fdc6a3fd48f17a5bed49d708fbfd4f Apparently the file was uploaded again, with same name, but different contents, and version in srpm does not match download link. I see the -doc package is installing files under: /usr/share/gems/gems/chake-0.13/ I believe this is incorrect. Are you sure the main package runs without the files installed there? Please also comment on the directory: /usr/share/gems/doc/chake-0.13/ri is it really required by the -doc package? Either way, what is installing in /usr/share/gems/doc/chake-0.13/ should be installed in /usr/share/doc/chake About the fonts, I believe the bug report is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224715 and it will not get any attention, as the linked, related upstream report is closed https://github.com/rdoc/rdoc/issues/186 as they apparently had a different idea about it. Please check that just adding a 'Requires: lato-fonts' is not enough to display the documentation, and if not enough, please check what kind of patch could be done, apparently only in the *.css files. I understand it is replicated in more than 500 packages, but that is not correct :( Please check https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby the template there installs documentation under: $ rpm -E %_defaultdocdir /usr/share/doc what should be done by the sample command in the sample spec: rdoc --op %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} You should likely also join the ruby SIG, and check the tools there, as well as other documentation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ruby_SIG I believe you are doing good, but I will prefer to have you knowing well about all packaging details before approving the package. About the reviews with no longer srpm or spec, what you did is fine, just comment about it in the bug report :) Your informal review of a sample rubygem package is also good. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx