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=746438
--- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)fedoraproject.org> 2011-11-28 09:10:16
EST ---
Thank you for comments. I will update my package later.
For now only replying to your comments.
(In reply to comment #1)
* Update to the latest version
- Time is passing fast, could you please update to the latest version?
- Will do later.
* Is it worth of including ruby- subpackage?
- Isn't this re-review good opportunity to get rid of the ruby- subpackage?
The design is flawed IMO and doesn't bring anything of benefit for users.
- Still packages rebuilt from ruby-gnome2 srpm needs this.
Note that ruby-gnome2 uses ruby-gnome2-all "tarball", not gem, and
ruby modules built from ruby-gnome2-all tarball needs ruby-cairo module
and so on.
* Remove the -devel subpackage.
- Is the -devel package required? Will somebody prepare some other library
with
binary extension which will depend on cairo? What is your opinion?
- Actually, for example:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=rubygem-gtk2.git;a=blob;f=rubygem...
- Will remove.
* Use ruby(rubygems) virtual provide preferably
- Well, for "BR (or R) rubygems" (not rubygem-foo), I decided not to impose
me (and other packagers) to change it to ruby(rubygems) - as actually
(except for %check section) what we use here is gem "command" (i.e.
/usr/bin/gem) and we don't use rubygem "module" (i.e. we don't use
'require "rubygems"' here). So currently I think writing "BR:
rubygems" is
more proper.
* The license should be Ruby or GPLv2
- Since the COPYING file states "distributed under the same conditions as
ruby",
the license should be adjusted appropriately.
- Note that /usr/share/doc/ruby-libs-1.8.7.352/COPYING
(in ruby-libs-1.8.7.352-3.fc17.i686) says:
-------------------------------------------------------
You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL
*version 2* (see the file GPL), or the conditions below:
-------------------------------------------------------
(the explicit *version 2* is here) and this COPYING file says:
-------------------------------------------------------
You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL
(see the file GPL), or the conditions below:
-------------------------------------------------------
So these are in fact slightly different. This type of difference
actually appear on many ruby gems. How we should interpret may be
ambiguous, however for now for this case I distinguish between
"GPLv2 or Ruby" and "GPL+ or Ruby".
--
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.