Hi Vít,

Thanks for your feedback, here and in the ticket.

- B

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 03:58, Vít Ondruch <vondruch@redhat.com> wrote:

Dne 25. 02. 20 v 0:18 Troy Dawson napsal(a):
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 2:55 PM Breno Brand Fernandes
> <brandfbb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I had an issue today with a package I submitted to code review [1].
>>
>> The reviewer pointed out that I was shipping font files instead of requiring them.
>> And, I was also not shipping their license.
>>
>> After that, Trevor and I started to investigate and we realized that some other packages had the same issue. We wrote a few scripts and came to the conclusion that almost every rubygem doc package pushed to Fedora Rawhide right now has those files.
>>
>> We also investigated the gems, and it seems that by default they do not include those files [2].
>>
>> A list of the mentioned files is attached to this email.
>> There are fonts, CSS, Javascripts, and others.
>>
>> In one of the rubygem packages (rubygem-nifti) we found that those files could be excluded [3].
>>
>> Is this expected? Should we just use the exclude [3] even though the files were downloaded?
>> I mean, removing the files at a build stage is enough if they have licensing issues?
>>
>> What is the right direction the reviewer or the maintainer should be pointed to?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> - B
>>
>> 1 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803276
>> 2 - e.g. https://rubygems.org/gems/cane-3.0.0.gem
>> 3 - %files doc section, they have "%exclude  %{gem_docdir}/rdoc"
> Just so ya'll know, it was Troy he was working with, not Trevor.
> I'm going to be a bit more specific.
> Every rubygem doc rpm (but one) in rawhide has the following
> directories, with the exact same fonts and images in them.
>
>   /usr/share/gems/doc/<package>/rdoc/{css,font,images,js}/
>
> The fonts in those directories are Lato and SourceCodePro.
> I searched everywhere I could think of to see what our policy was
> about those, but couldn't find anything.
> The only package we found, that didn't have those, was rubygem-nifti,
> as stated above.
>
> What are people's thoughts.  Should we add that %exclude to our
> policy?  Or is this such a minor thing we shouldn't worry about it.
> My final recommendation to Breno was to add the exclude, but we were
> also a bit concerned if this was going to break documentation.


This is old Ruby ticket:


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224715


Vít



>
> Troy
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org