Cached .gem file - include it or not

Darryl L. Pierce mcpierce at gmail.com
Mon Aug 20 12:58:31 UTC 2012


On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:00:59PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
<snip>
>> >And this is even what is in current fedora-review(1) as in its output is:
> >[x]: MUST Gem package must exclude cached Gem.
> 
> I already asked to relax this MUST:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848283
> 
> >
> >I do not understand why it is MUST item. And anyway, why it could not be
> >present.
> 
> It just consumes space and the functionality it serves is replaced
> by RPM functionality.

+1 It strikes me that the gem file itself is fairly redundant on a
Fedora system. Does anything in Ruby actually touch the gem?

-- 
Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce at gmail.com>
http://mcpierce.multiply.com/
"What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/attachments/20120820/1b7255d0/attachment.sig>


More information about the ruby-sig mailing list