https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693
--- Comment #5 from Robby Callicotte rcallicotte@mailbox.org --- Hello!
Updated SPEC: https://rcallicotte.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-hashie.spec Updated SPRM: https://rcallicotte.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-hashie-5.0.0-2.fc38.src.rpm
a) Should UPGRADING.md be placed in the documentation package?
I added this file to the doc subpackage
b) Can source1 be linked explicitly, it has a tag https://github.com/hashie/hashie/tags ?
I am following established precedent observed in about 30-ish previously built rubygems. This is explicitly archiving only the spec directory.
c) there are font files which should be packaged separately Lato-LightItalic.ttf Lato-RegularItalic.ttf SourceCodePro-Bold.ttf Lato-Light.ttf Lato-Regular.ttf SourceCodePro-Regular.ttf Corresponding packages https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lato-fonts/lato-fonts/ https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/adobe-source-code-pro-fonts/adobe-so... Can make these packages dependencies and add softlinks at usr/share/gems/doc/hashie-5.0.0/rdoc/fonts
I am following established precedent observed in about 30-ish previously build rubygems. I have searched the ruby-devel lists[1] and this ticket[2] was mentioned. The consensus was to keep the status quo due to the amount of re-work that would need to be done. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
d) Not sure why one still gets the warning [!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin.
This might be due to fedora-review missing the ruby plugin. You can install fedora-review-plugin-ruby and that should clear the warning.
[1] - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.o... [2] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224715