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=746079 --- Comment #3 from James Laska <jlaska@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-26 12:14:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Based on my review feedback, I would approve this package. I believe we just > need to find a sponsor to review my findings and sponsor you. > > == MUST requirements == > > > [ WARN ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the > > build produces. The output should be posted in the review.(refer to > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint) > > rubygem-grit.noarch: W: no-documentation > > The .spec linked in comment#0 is not the same .spec used to build the .src.rpm. > The .spec linked includes the LICENSE file in the base package (and the -doc > subpackage). The .spec included in the provided .src.rpm does not. I'd > suggest using the .spec linked instead. > > > diff -u rubygem-grit.src.spec rubygem-grit.spec > > --- rubygem-grit.src.spec 2011-10-26 10:40:27.096819597 -0400 > > +++ rubygem-grit.spec 2011-10-13 15:42:36.000000000 -0400 > > @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ > > %{geminstdir}/lib > > %{gemdir}/cache/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem > > %{gemdir}/specifications/%{gemname}-%{version}.gemspec > > +%doc %{geminstdir}/LICENSE > > > > %files doc > > %doc %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version} Hey Joe ... to rephrase, I think the review of the package is fine. But I did find a minor issue that should be addressed. The .spec file linked in comment#0 appears to be different from the .spec file included in the src.rpm in comment#0. I recommend rebuilding the src.rpm using the spec file linked from comment#0. -- 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review