Oh, I'm sorry Troy. I thought of Troy and wrote Trevor. My bad. I am getting old...
Thanks for clarifying the issue. - B On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 18:20, Troy Dawson <tdaw...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 2:55 PM Breno Brand Fernandes > <brand...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I had an issue today with a package I submitted to code review [1]. > > > > The reviewer pointed out that I was shipping font files instead of > requiring them. > > And, I was also not shipping their license. > > > > After that, Trevor and I started to investigate and we realized that > some other packages had the same issue. We wrote a few scripts and came to > the conclusion that almost every rubygem doc package pushed to Fedora > Rawhide right now has those files. > > > > We also investigated the gems, and it seems that by default they do not > include those files [2]. > > > > A list of the mentioned files is attached to this email. > > There are fonts, CSS, Javascripts, and others. > > > > In one of the rubygem packages (rubygem-nifti) we found that those files > could be excluded [3]. > > > > Is this expected? Should we just use the exclude [3] even though the > files were downloaded? > > I mean, removing the files at a build stage is enough if they have > licensing issues? > > > > What is the right direction the reviewer or the maintainer should be > pointed to? > > > > Thanks. > > > > - B > > > > 1 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803276 > > 2 - e.g. https://rubygems.org/gems/cane-3.0.0.gem > > 3 - %files doc section, they have "%exclude %{gem_docdir}/rdoc" > > Just so ya'll know, it was Troy he was working with, not Trevor. > I'm going to be a bit more specific. > Every rubygem doc rpm (but one) in rawhide has the following > directories, with the exact same fonts and images in them. > > /usr/share/gems/doc/<package>/rdoc/{css,font,images,js}/ > > The fonts in those directories are Lato and SourceCodePro. > I searched everywhere I could think of to see what our policy was > about those, but couldn't find anything. > The only package we found, that didn't have those, was rubygem-nifti, > as stated above. > > What are people's thoughts. Should we add that %exclude to our > policy? Or is this such a minor thing we shouldn't worry about it. > My final recommendation to Breno was to add the exclude, but we were > also a bit concerned if this was going to break documentation. > > Troy > _______________________________________________ > ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org >
_______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
