Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071
------- Additional Comments From dlutter(a)redhat.com 2006-07-06 20:02 EST -------
(In reply to comment #5)
The gemspec file looks like a source of useful data; I wonder if we
could use it
to generate a reasonable starting spec file.
I tried that with
http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/gem2spec.html which works
reasonably well. The thing that makes me hesitant about packaging gems are
outlined at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RubyGems
The site{lib,arch} thing should be resolved now. The guidelines say
sitearchdir
and sitelib dir; is that we really wanted to go with?
I wanted to keep it close to the entry in Config::CONFIG those get set from. Do
you think the resulting macro names are too long ?
There's no ruby(abi) requirement.
Oops.
Is the explicit sqlite requirement necessary? rpm finds the
libsqlite3.so.0
dependency on its own.
You are right - that was overkill
Review:
X No ruby(abi) requirement.
Fixed
Updated stuff:
Spec URL:
http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-sqlite3.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-sqlite3-1.1.0-4.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.