<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Whoops, see comments in the previous email. Attached is the updated
spec<br>
<br>
Matt<br>
<br>
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20081117215853.GB1392@br-online.de" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Matt Rose wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">requires: ruby >= 1.8.5, ruby-libs >= 1.8.5
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Are you sure about that? I only have
Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8
in my spec (which is for 1.1.1 though)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tgz
License: GPL
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I think naming both licenses is correct here:
License: Ruby License/GPL
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">BuildPreReq: ruby >= 1.8.5, ruby-libs >= 1.8.5
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Hmmm. Why PreReq?
I have BuildRequires: ruby, ruby-irb, ruby-rdoc in my spec.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">%description
Ruby Gems
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
RubyGems is the Ruby standard for publishing and managing third party
libraries.
Yours is a tad short :)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
rm -rf %{buildroot}
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Hmmm. Either or, I think. Not both in one spec file :)
I also have a wad of rubygems which are packaged and should be published
somewhere (like a complete rails 2.1 environment, mod_passenger and other
stuff).
Cheers,
Ralph
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>