https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786249
Russell Harrison <fedora(a)russellharrison.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
--- Comment #13 from Russell Harrison <fedora(a)russellharrison.com> ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Sorry for the delay, here are my comments:
- Is Requires: puppet really needed? Isn't it possible to lint the puppet
files without actually having puppet installed?
I think you're right, v0.2.0
looks like it dropped the puppet requirement from
the gem. I'll drop it from the package as well.
- BuildRequires: rubygem(rspec-core) should be BuildRequires:
rubygem(rspec)
from F17 and above.
OK, I was trying to bring in as little as possible required for
the tests to
run. I'll change it to match standard practice.
- BuildRequires: rubygem(rdoc) is not necessary, rdoc gets
automatically
drawn in by rubygems, that generate the documentation.
Removed
- Some files should be moved to -doc subpackage. The rule of thumb we
use
here is: if it is not needed for runtime, put it in the -doc subpackage.
Moreover, the packages that actually are documentation, like rdoc files or
README, should still be marked %doc even in the subpackage. Other files, as
Rakefile, should be moved to -doc subpackage while not being marked as %doc.
LICENSE should be marked as %doc, but should stay in the main package. So
please move Rakefile, spec and README to -doc subpackage.
Even README? That seems a
bit extreme, I would think that at least that minimal
level of documentation should remain with the main package. Moving the
requested files to the doc subpackage.
- It is customary (but not required) not to remove the
%{buildroot}/%{gem_instdir}/.*, but %exclude them in the file listing
(consider this a nice-to-have, certainly not a blocker).
That seems cleaner to me
as well. I'm not a fan of removing things during rpm
builds.
- %{buildroot}/%{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec file is usually
kept in
the package and placed in the -doc, while not being marked as %doc :)
Done
Please post the new spec/srpm. The package looks good in overall, so
I think
there will be no further problems when you fix the ones above.
Great! I'll test
out these changes this morning and post the new files later
today.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.