https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
--- Comment #3 from Julian C. Dunn <jdunn(a)aquezada.com> ---
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2)
* Patches are missing comments
- Your .spec file contains 4 patches. It would be nice to comment them what
they are good for, why they are not upstream. For example, Patch3 seems
to
be fixing compatibility with RSpec 2.x, while upstream is using RSpec 3.x
already.
* libyaml2 gem dependency
- I have to say, I am disappointed with this way of bundling, although not
sure if you can do something about it, since this is upstream issue, but
I
must point this out.
I'd call your patches substantial. The biggest change is that you
completely
drop the dependency on libyajl2, that means if somebody is sharing
Gemfile.lock (and we can put aside if this is good idea or not), their
dependencies will differ for Fedoras version of ffi-libyaml in
comparison to
original gems.
So I have already had this discussion with upstream. The vendoring (or not) of
the C library is all within the separate libyajl2 gem, to abstract that away. I
can separately package that gem as rubygem-libyajl2 with the vendoring turned
off (it's supported by upstream) instead of doing it the way I have done; would
that be acceptable, to maintain the existing dependency tree?
The only reason I did it this way is because at this point the rubygem-libyajl2
package becomes a complete no-op and is only used to satisfy gem deps.
--
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