Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #36 from Moses Mendoza <[email protected]> --- Hi Vit, I've updated per your comments, here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/rubygemshadow/2.2.0/rubygem-ruby-shadow-2.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm https://s3.amazonaws.com/rubygemshadow/2.2.0/rubygem-ruby-shadow.spec with the exception of: > * %{ruby_version} > - I already expressed my concerns about %{ruby_version} above and they still > apply. I agree with Tim regarding the maintainability/difficulty of back-porting statically assigned ruby pathing. > * %install section > - Wouldn't be better to install just files of interest instead of copying > everything and then doing clean up? I did this, but it seemed less clean than it was before. Either way is fine with me, and I'm welcome to better ways to accomplish it than I used. > - Since the package will not own any file, it could be noarch at the end? > This is weird :) I agree, it does seem strange. I left it as is, for now, but am fine with updating to noarch if this is a requirement. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UZQHynq7g0&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
