Hi Vít, Thanks for your feedback, here and in the ticket.
- B On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 03:58, Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Dne 25. 02. 20 v 0:18 Troy Dawson napsal(a): > > 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. > > > This is old Ruby ticket: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224715 > > > Vít > > > > > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ 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
