Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-http-access2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179940 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-02-28 16:25 EST ------- It should be either "GPL/Ruby License" or "GPL or Ruby License" since the package is dual-licensed. You can remove any reference to %{ruby_sitearch} as this is a noarch package. rpmlint says: W: ruby-http-access2 invalid-license Ruby License E: ruby-http-access2 only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: ruby-http-access2 no-documentation We can discount the first warning. I think we must discount the second warning; rpmlint has checks to prevent this for /usr/lib/ruby but not for /usr/lib/site_ruby. I would argue that site_ruby should be in /usr/lib/ruby (as Perl does things) but the current organization is the way Red Hat set things up. The second warning is valid; you seem to have dropped the documentation. At minimum you should package README.txt and the sample directory. The package doesn't build in mock for some reason. It looks like ruby isn't installed in the build environment at the time the first two lines of the specfile are executed. I need to spend some more time debugging this. More in about 90 minutes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
