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: rubygems - the Ruby standard for packaging ruby libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220683 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-12-28 00:13 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. see below - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License See below - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 5d496e1f415b8b4033ab867f01d1161f rubygems-0.9.0.tgz 5d496e1f415b8b4033ab867f01d1161f rubygems-0.9.0.tgz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. You seem to be mixing %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT best to pick one macro style and stick with it. 2. What is the license here? The web page says: License: Ruby License Your spec says "GPL" The source files all say: "# See LICENSE.txt for permissions." There is no included LICENSE.txt file. 3. Might change %defattr(-, root, root) to %defattr(-, root, root,-) 4. The i386 and x86_64 packages are different, which if this should really be noarch. I see in them: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/ /usr/lib64/ruby/gems/ 5. Do you need the 'ruby' BuildRequires since you have ruby-devel? That should pull that in I would think... -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review