https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949317
Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |vondr...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Eduardo Echeverria from comment #2)
> There are some issues in fedora-review which appear to be false positives
> - Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
> See:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support
> this package contains C extensions, therefore are dependent arch
The package is not marked as noarch as far as I can say, but the -doc
subpackage should be noarch IMO.
BTW why is there "ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64"? Is that known that these package
does not work on PPC? Sorry, I did not checked, I'm just wondering.
> - Compiler flags do not honor fedora specific. please add
> export CONFIGURE_ARGS="--with-cflags='%{optflags}'"
> above %gem_install
The CONFIGURE_ARGS variable now part of %gem_install macro, so it is OK to be
omitted.
* Please use %{gem_instdir} in place of %{gem_dir}/gems/%{gem_name}-%{version}/
- We have macro for this construct, no need to be so verbose
- Moreover, we use to prepend %dir to this macro and include the content of
this directory explicitly. Although it is more work, it gives you a bit
more
fine grained control during updates, what goes into package and what was
changed, etc.
--
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=7VNPRFiTxn&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
