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=746438
--- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-28 09:10:16 EST --- Thank you for comments. I will update my package later. For now only replying to your comments.
(In reply to comment #1)
- Update to the latest version
- Time is passing fast, could you please update to the latest version?
- Will do later.
- Is it worth of including ruby- subpackage?
- Isn't this re-review good opportunity to get rid of the ruby- subpackage? The design is flawed IMO and doesn't bring anything of benefit for users.
- Still packages rebuilt from ruby-gnome2 srpm needs this. Note that ruby-gnome2 uses ruby-gnome2-all "tarball", not gem, and ruby modules built from ruby-gnome2-all tarball needs ruby-cairo module and so on.
- Remove the -devel subpackage.
- Is the -devel package required? Will somebody prepare some other library
with binary extension which will depend on cairo? What is your opinion?
- Actually, for example:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=rubygem-gtk2.git;a=blob;f=rubygem-gt...
- defattr macros are no longer necessary
- Will remove.
- Use ruby(rubygems) virtual provide preferably
- Well, for "BR (or R) rubygems" (not rubygem-foo), I decided not to impose me (and other packagers) to change it to ruby(rubygems) - as actually (except for %check section) what we use here is gem "command" (i.e. /usr/bin/gem) and we don't use rubygem "module" (i.e. we don't use 'require "rubygems"' here). So currently I think writing "BR: rubygems" is more proper.
- The license should be Ruby or GPLv2
- Since the COPYING file states "distributed under the same conditions as
ruby", the license should be adjusted appropriately.
- Note that /usr/share/doc/ruby-libs-1.8.7.352/COPYING (in ruby-libs-1.8.7.352-3.fc17.i686) says: ------------------------------------------------------- You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL *version 2* (see the file GPL), or the conditions below: ------------------------------------------------------- (the explicit *version 2* is here) and this COPYING file says: ------------------------------------------------------- You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL (see the file GPL), or the conditions below: ------------------------------------------------------- So these are in fact slightly different. This type of difference actually appear on many ruby gems. How we should interpret may be ambiguous, however for now for this case I distinguish between "GPLv2 or Ruby" and "GPL+ or Ruby".