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-sqlite3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 20:02 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > The gemspec file looks like a source of useful data; I wonder if we could use > it > to generate a reasonable starting spec file. I tried that with http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/gem2spec.html which works reasonably well. The thing that makes me hesitant about packaging gems are outlined at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RubyGems > The site{lib,arch} thing should be resolved now. The guidelines say > sitearchdir > and sitelib dir; is that we really wanted to go with? I wanted to keep it close to the entry in Config::CONFIG those get set from. Do you think the resulting macro names are too long ? > There's no ruby(abi) requirement. Oops. > Is the explicit sqlite requirement necessary? rpm finds the libsqlite3.so.0 > dependency on its own. You are right - that was overkill > Review: > X No ruby(abi) requirement. Fixed Updated stuff: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-sqlite3.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-sqlite3-1.1.0-4.src.rpm -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
