https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361334 --- Comment #7 from Jun Aruga <jaruga@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to František Dvořák from comment #5) > > #1. LICENCE file. > > Pull request sent (and merged). It seems it is just a typo in upstream > gemspec and it's true it will simplify the spec file. > > URL updated, versioned license file is better. Okay I got it, and checked your new spec file. It looks good to me. Thanks. > > #2. Koji URL > > > > Next time not now, it is good habit to put the result of scratch build. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359224 > > > Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14979792 > > > > OK (I usually include the link to the build. :-)) OK :) > > #3. files > > > > %files > > %doc %{gem_instdir}/README.md > > > > You may use gem2rpm old version. > > You do not need to include README.md %files section. as you inlude LICENSE > > file in it. > > > > Remove below lines from %files, and move to %files doc section. > > I want to include below files doc RPM file. > > > > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/test/ > > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile > > > > The reason is we want to reduce the base RPM's file size. > > And if it is not ".*" file, want to include doc RPM file. > > > > OK. I guess this is quite "gray" area: some reviewers even prefer to include > README file in the main package. The gem2spec version way may be slightly > better here because more packages will probably use that way. :-) Updated. Yeah, some reviewers may prefer to include README file. It is grey area, as it is not written on "Packaging:Ruby" Guideline. You can decide it of cource finally. OK I checked it had updated in the new spec file. Thanks. > > #3. Add below lines. near "BuildRequires: rubygems-devel". > > You can see the result of latest gem2rpm. > > > > BuildRequires: ruby(release) > > BuildRequires: ruby > > > > Why is that needed? Guideline doesn't mention it (most of my ruby packages > doesn't have these dependencies). > > Although it's true I haven't checked any other ruby implementations here. We can build and install without these 2 lines on latest version Fedora. Because these 2 lines are needed to build, install on older Feodra version like F22 or F23. Though I do not know exact version for that. I have heard it. However it is gray area. It is up to you finally. > > #5. Use latest version gem2rpm > > > > Finally latest gem2rpm is covering above these things. > > I can suggest you can use master branch of > > https://github.com/fedora-ruby/gem2rpm > > , though it is optional. > > > > Its generated template is the collection of our latest trend for the spec > > file. > > > > Yes, it looks like there are no differences in generated spec-file between > the version I use (0.11.3) and the master branch. > > I generate the spec file by gem2spec, but edit it heavily after that. Yes mostly same. There is a little different. But it looks harmless. https://github.com/fedora-ruby/gem2rpm/issues/87 > Updated package (koji > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15175903): > > Spec URL: > http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-rails-controller-testing-0.1.1-2/ > rubygem-rails-controller-testing.spec > SRPM URL: > http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-rails-controller-testing-0.1.1-2/ > rubygem-rails-controller-testing-0.1.1-2.fc25.src.rpm > > %changelog > * Mon Aug 08 2016 František Dvořák <valtri@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.1.1-2 > - Pull request to include LICENSE file in the gem > - Keep the tests in -doc subpackage I APPROVED your code! -- 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