Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468597 --- Comment #25 from Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-29 15:09:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) > (In reply to comment #21) > > http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f9/SRPMS/rubygem-ferret-0.11.6-6.fc9.src.rpm > - So for license "GPLv2+" for ext/q_parser.c can be ignored by Bison exception > term > (you can regard that ext/q_parser.c are under "BSD or GPLv2+") > Please use "BSD and MIT" for license tag. > Fixed > > I'm not sure whether I should package the tests provided with the gem in -doc > > or in the base package... Please advise. > I would move these files to -doc (if I create -doc subpackage), however > this is under your choise. > Moved the files to -doc subpackage for efficiency in production environments. > By the way: > - I recommend to use %{version} tag for Source0: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_.25.7Bversion.7D > > Also, the number "28549" in URL of Source0 will change each time the version > is upgraded. If you don't like this, gem has alternative URL: > http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem > Awesome, I didn't know this. Fixed. > - Please make it sure that the directory %{geminstdir} itself is also > owned by this package. Fixed. New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-ferret.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f9/SRPMS/rubygem-ferret-0.11.6-7.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review