[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[Bug 180066] Request: Inclusion of a ruby template file
- From: bugzilla redhat com
- To: fedora-extras-list redhat com
- Subject: [Bug 180066] Request: Inclusion of a ruby template file
- Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:00:06 -0400
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Request: Inclusion of a ruby template file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180066
ville skytta iki fi changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |NEEDINFO
Flag| |needinfo?
------- Additional Comments From ville skytta iki fi 2006-07-06 17:51 EST -------
There's a spurious "BuildArchitectures: noarch" line in the new template, I
suppose there are no objections to removing that. A BuildArch: placeholder is
already there.
I see ruby_sitelib and ruby_sitearch have had "dir" appended to them. While
cosmetic, I think it would be good to be consistent with the perl and python
precedents in templates and/or macros shipping in the main rpm package; both of
perl and python use *_sitelib and *_sitearch without the trailing "dir".
I've committed to rpmdevtools CVS with those changes, let me know if there are
strong opinions on the *_site*dir macro names and/or if they're "set in stone"
and I'll add those changes too.
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/fedora-rpmdevtools/spectemplate-ruby.spec?root=fedora&rev=.&view=markup
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]