https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242056 --- Comment #13 from Athos Ribeiro <athoscribeiro@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #12) > Hi Athos, Hi Paulo, thank you for the feedback. > > 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 simplecov is a gem to measure test coverage. I don't see any advantage on measuring test coverage during the build step since the output would be ignored. It would also generate a "coverege" directory which would have to be removed. see https://github.com/colszowka/simplecov for reference. > > 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. Sorry for that, the new build (link below) has the right source and the checksums match > > 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? Yes, the -doc files under /usr/share/gems/gems/chake-0.13/ are /usr/share/gems/gems/chake-0.13/examples which is a directory with examples on how to use chake /usr/share/gems/gems/chake-0.13/spec which is a directory with integration tests /usr/share/gems/gems/chake-0.13/ChangeLog.md /usr/share/gems/gems/chake-0.13/README.md upstream changelog and readme files /usr/share/gems/gems/chake-0.13/Rakefile Which is a file for rake (make for ruby, so this would be something like a Makefile) /usr/share/gems/gems/chake-0.13/Gemfile File defining all dependencies of the project /usr/share/gems/gems/chake-0.13/chake.gemspec File that defines the gem These files usually go in the -doc in other packaged gems. > > 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 The ri directory contains the ri documentation for the gem. ri documentation can be browsed through ri calls on the command line. About being installed in /usr/share/doc/chake: As you can see here (f23): $ dnf repoquery --repoid=fedora -l rubygem-*-doc | grep -i "^/usr/share/gems/doc/" | cut -d/ -f6 | uniq | wc -l 531 $ dnf repoquery --repoid=fedora rubygem-*-doc | grep rubygem | wc -l 533 only 2 out of 533 gems do not install documentation in /usr/share/gems/doc, shouldn't I also follow this pattern? note that %{gem_docdir} expands to /usr/share/gems/gems/NAME-VERSION, as defined in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Macros. > > 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. I see... > 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 :( I removed the generated fonts, required the two packages wich contain them and added links to these files, how about that? I am also checking with Ruby SIG if that approach would be feasible for all the other 500+ -doc packages. > > 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} The example shown is for ruby applications, there are other instructions for packaging gems there. As mentioned above, there is a macro defined with the path for gems documentations in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Macros > > You should likely also join the ruby SIG, and check the tools > there, as well as other documentation: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ruby_SIG Done! > > 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 :) I was thinking about parsing all the open review requests tickets and upload a page with information on those, but I believe this should be discussed in a new ticket, right? > > Your informal review of a sample rubygem package is also good. New sources: Spec URL: https://ribeiro.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-chake.spec SRPM URL: https://ribeiro.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-chake-0.13-6.fc25.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14336411 -- 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