Oh, I'm sorry Troy.
I thought of Troy and wrote Trevor. My bad. I am getting old...

Thanks for clarifying the issue.

- B


On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 18:20, Troy Dawson <tdawson@redhat.com> wrote:
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.

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