https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871157
Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #6)
Thanks!
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #5)
> * Test suite
Yep, I did that, and the tests pass.
We typically execute test in `pushd .%{gem_instdir}`, because that is the final
layout as after `gem install` call.
> * Soft dependency on groff-base?
> - The `Requires: groff-base` could be possibly changed to `Recommends`.
> This could help if Ronn is used as Ruby library. OTOH,
> if it is included into buildroot to generate documentation, the soft
> dependency would not be installed and that could be annoying.
> - Nevertheless, wouldn't it be better to use `Requires: %{_bindir}/groff`
> instead?
I changed it to /usr/bin/groff. I think this is not going to be used as a
library
much, and breaking the commandline use would be annoying. (I didn't use a
macro
in the build requires, because if this package was rebuilt with a different
%_bindir, e.g. for a flatpak, we'd still want the original location for
groff.)
While I understand the Flatpak argument, I don't think it is valid.
1) It is not reflected in guidelines, so if you feel strong about it, the
guidelines should be updated.
2) It should be resolved on RPM level and there is already discussion:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/721
.spec and .src.rpm updated in place.
Other that that, I don't have any serious concerns => APPROVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component