Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668820 --- Comment #18 from Mo Morsi <mmo...@redhat.com> 2011-07-14 15:12:35 EDT --- Updated SPEC: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rdoc.spec Updated SRPM: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rdoc-3.8-1.fc15.src.rpm Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3199490 (In reply to comment #2) > * Please consider updating to the latest version (3.5.1 atm) Done, updated to the latest (3.8) > > * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > - Please review the licensing. At appears that the package is GPLv2 and some > custom license, where some files are MIT (lib/rdoc/task.rb) or Ruby > licensed > Done. Package includes GPLv2, MIT, and Ruby licenses. > * Cleaning > - %clean section is no longer needed (on Fedora): > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean > Done, clean section removed. > * Documentation > - Please do not disable documentation generation, since ruby forces > installation of ruby-rdoc, therefore rdoc should be available prior the > gem > installation > - Please consider to provide the documentation in -doc subpackage > Its seems there is an issue w/ parsing the rubygem-rdoc documentation w/ ruby-rdoc. Whenever I re-enable the --rdoc, I get the following parse error: Generating HTML... ERROR: While generating documentation for rdoc-3.8 ... MESSAGE: Unhandled special: Special: type=17, text="<!-- -->" ... RDOC args: --op /home/mmorsi/rpmbuild/BUILD/rubygem-rdoc-3.8/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/rdoc-3.8/rdoc --main README.txt lib History.txt LICENSE.txt Manifest.txt README.txt RI.txt Rakefile --title rdoc-3.8 Documentation Grepping the source, it seems the offending line is in History.txt. Since from the rpm spec's perspective installing History.txt and parsing it w/ rdoc is an atomic operation, I've disabled the rdoc generation for the time being. Added a documentation subpackage, and re-enabled ri generation. > * Requires > - BuildRequires: rubygem(minitest) is needed for text execution > Done > * Tests > - Please execute test suite using following command: > ruby -I../lib -e "Dir.glob('test/test_*').each {|t| require t}" > This allows you to avoid build dependency on rake, hoe, rubyforge and > neither > ZenTest is required IMO. ./lib/rdoc/task.rb:36 requires 'rake' and 'rake/tasklib'. Had to add rubygem(rake) as Requires and a BuildRequires Regardless, to get rid of rubygem(hoe) I implemented your suggestion. (In reply to comment #8) > P.S. It is interesting that in Ruby, there were left bundled RDoc, which is > against Fedora policy anyway. Of course it is not the only one library bundled > in Ruby. True but you have to recall that rdoc was originally part of the Ruby package then got forked off into the gem. At some point it wouldn't surprise me if it was dropped from ruby internally all together (though this would make it harder for rdoc support in rubygems and what not). (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > Mo, I did not payed enough attention to this issue when I did the original > review, but re-reviewing the spec again, it might be really the best solution > just to ignore/delete the gem rdoc executable as you did in the package, > since: Actually this is what the original submission has. It just removes the bin directory all together. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
