[Bug 472819] Review Request: rubygem-rufus-scheduler - Scheduler for Ruby (at, cron and every jobs)

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Apr 29 20:19:56 UTC 2009


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=472819





--- Comment #6 from Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce at redhat.com>  2009-04-29 16:19:55 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> - I don't know if this is normal for ruby gems, but you're using a non-standard
> documentation location:

That's a standard location for Ruby gems:

(mcpierce at mcpierce-laptop:~)$ ls /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/
actionmailer-2.1.1  activeresource-2.1.1       daemons-1.0.7     gruff-0.3.4   
rake-0.8.4       rufus-scheduler-1.0.13
actionpack-2.1.1    activesupport-2.1.1        fastthread-1.0.1  hoe-1.12.1    
RedCloth-4.1.9   tlsmail-0.0.1
activerecord-2.1.1  cgi_multipart_eof_fix-2.3  gem_plugin-0.2.3  mongrel-1.0.1 
rubyforge-1.0.3

Maybe the Ruby packaging guidelines should add a guideline for this?

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Build_Architecture_and_File_Placement

> - The line
>  Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8
> is missing. Please add this. [
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines ]

Fixed.

> 
> - You can probably drop the
>  %define ruby_sitelib %(ruby -rrbconfig -e "puts Config::CONFIG['sitelibdir']")
> since you're not using it anywhere.

Removed.

> SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
> upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSFIX

Fixed. LICENSE.txt is in the RPM but I didn't note it as a doc.

Spec URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-rufus-scheduler.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-rufus-scheduler-1.0.13-2.fc10.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.




More information about the package-review mailing list