Hello Lukas, I did some changes in my fork of gem2rpm [1], which hopefully solves most of the notes you have in your blog. The only one which remains unresolved is the License field, which is not available in the .gemspec file, so there should be some heuristics. I was thinking about port of lixensecheck [2], which is part of rpmdevtools package, but may be somebody has some tip for already existing gem with similar functionality?
If you have some addition comments and suggestions about Ruby packaging, please add them into discussion part of packaging guidelines. I would like to collect there some thoughts and update the guidelines one day. Of course you can go forward and prepare draft of update Ruby package guidelines and we can push it through the FESCo later. This would be the best case of course :) [1] https://github.com/voxik/gem2rpm/ [2] https://fedorahosted.org/rpmdevtools/browser/devscripts/scripts/licensecheck.pl [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_talk:Ruby Vit Dne 20.6.2011 18:20, Lukas Zapletal napsal(a): > Hello, > > its pretty obvious that gem2rpm tool does not produce output that is > fully align with our Ruby& Fedora Guidelines. I blogged about most > important changes that usually need to be done before pushing the > package in the Fedora. > > http://bit.ly/lE6BU7 > > The changes are pretty cosmetic though, but I would like to extend it a > bit maybe and provide more valuable information. Maybe to put this on > the wiki if there is not such a place already. Suggestions? > > Comments? > > Thanks > _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
