[Bug 179940] Review Request: ruby-http-access2

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: ruby-http-access2


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179940





------- Additional Comments From oliver.andrich at gmail.com  2006-02-28 13:25 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> We have a specfile template for Ruby now; it would be best to follow it
> especially as it fixes things like %{ruby_sitelib}.  Ruby packaging isn't as far
> along as Perl or Python so I think it's important that everything is consistent.

Well, I supplied the template myself, but havn't applied it yet on this package.
Shame on me. :) 

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180066

I also suggested adding a paragraph concerning ruby to the package naming
guidelines the closely follows the python and perl paragraphs. I hope it will be
merged into the document soon. 

> The summary is a bit awkward; suggest changing "Accessing" to "Access" or "A
> library for accessing".

Okay, understood. I am not a native english speaker, which is the cause of such
issues. 

> I believe the licensing is more complex than just GPL since the package allows
> distribution under Ruby's dual license, but I don't know what the common name of
> the other license is.

Well, I talked about that with the maintainer of the ruby package itself.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179933

If I look at the packaging guidelines and what is stated about licensing
information, it is obvious to me, that I have to mark to be licensed under the
GPL, cause it is the OSI approved licence. Akira Tagoh (tagoh at redhat.com)
suggested to use Distributable, as you can see in Ticket 179933. This is the way
I want to go.

> The specfile template prefers:
> 
> BuildRequires: ruby ruby-devel
> Requires: %{ruby_sitelib}
> 
> where %{ruby_sitelib} is defined earlier in the template.

This is done as soon as I update to the template. okay.

> The package should be BuildArch: noarch as it doesn't produce any binaries.
>
> Suggest deleting the last line for the description.
> 
> Suggest running the provided tests in a %check section if this is reasonable. 
> (It probably isn't if this requires network access.)
> 
> Please use %{ruby_sitelib} instead hardcoding the Ruby version in %files.

I agree with you and will release a new package tonight. Thanks for checking.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.