[Bug 639272] Review Request: rubygem-rack-accept - HTTP Accept for Ruby/Rack
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Oct 4 22:10:52 UTC 2010
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=639272
Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
QAContact|extras-qa at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> 2010-10-04 18:10:51 EDT ---
Some notes:
* Unused macros
- It seems that %ruby_sitelib macro is used nowhere.
* Requires/BuildRequires
- rubygem(rake) is for $ rake test and s.add_development_dependency
in gemspec file, so this is not needed for "Requires"
(for BuildRequires this is needed).
- ">= 0.4" or ">= 0" parts on (Build)Requires: rubygem(foo) are
not needed because packages on currently supported Fedora
branches all satisfy these version dependencies.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
* Directory ownership issue
- The directory %geminstdir itself is not owned by any packages.
* %files
- Please check if %geminstdir/%gemname.gemspec is really needed
( I guess not. Note that gemspec file is also installed under
%gemdir/specifications )
* Document files
- I think for this package -doc file should be created and the following
entries should be moved to -doc:
------------------------------------------------------------------
%{geminstdir}/test
%{geminstdir}/Rakefile
%{geminstdir}/doc
%{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}
------------------------------------------------------------------
( I usually think that especially test/ directory should not be
in main package )
--
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