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=588692
--- Comment #2 from Michal Fojtik mfojtik@redhat.com 2010-05-05 06:33:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
Did a formal review, looks good for the most part save one major blocker
- The current spec will not build at all unless following: pushd %{geminstdir}
is changed to: pushd %{buildroot}%{geminstdir} in the %check section, which fixes the error I was getting: pushd: /usr/lib64/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rerun-0.5.2: No such file or directory
Thank you! I've fixed this.
- rpmlint on the SRPM / Spec yields
- rubygem-rerun.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
The BuildRoot tag isn't used in your spec. It must be used in order to allow building the package as non root on some systems. For some rpm versions (e.g. rpm.org >= 4.6) the BuildRoot tag is not necessary in specfiles and is ignored by rpmbuild; if your package is only going to be built with such rpm versions you can ignore this warning.
Adding the following to the spec solves this: BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
Note, BuildRoot is no longer required/used, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag but this is the only way to remove this warning AFAIK. Thus either way, this is not a blocker for approval.
Last time I submitted a review request, I got notice that now is preferred to not use BuildRoot. So for now I keeping this specfile without this.
- rpmlint on the rpm itself spits out a bunch of macro warnings by mistake, eg
rubygem-rerun.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib64/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/rerun-0.5.2/ri/Rerun/Runner/running%3f-i.yaml %3f
This can be ignored, eg not a blocker, though these can easily be removed by simply adding the "--no-ri" flag to the "gem install" command in the spec (the rdoc documentation will still be generated)
Fixed. (I added --no-ri)
- And as far as docs go, there are enough to warrant a separate
rubygem-rerun-doc subpackage, though once again not a blocker for approval
I preffer to keep docs in same package. That is an ussual way howto deal with RDoc generated documentation.
Updated files: Spec URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-rerun.spec SRPM URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-rerun-0.5.2-2.fc13.src.rpm