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: rubygem-daemons - A toolkit to create and control ruby daemons https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=254019 dlutter@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From dlutter@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-23 21:27 EST ------- OK - Package name OK - Specfile name OK - Specfile is legible OK - No prebuilt binaries included OK - BuildRoot value (one of the recommended values) OK - PreReq not used OK - Source md5sum matches upstream OK - No hardcoded pathnames OK - Package owns all the files it installs OK - Package requires create needed unowned directories OK - Package builds successfully on i386 and x86_64 (mock) OK - BuildRequires sufficient OK - File permissions set properly OK - Macro usage is consistent OK - rpmlint is silent OK - Package is named rubygem-%{gemname} OK - Source points to full URL of gem OK - Package version identical with gem version OK - Package Requires and BuildRequires rubygems OK - Package provides rubygem(%{gemname}) = %version OK - Package requires gem dependencies correctly OK - %prep and %build are empty OK - %gemdir defined properly, and gem installed into it OK - Package owns its directories under %gemdir OK - No arch-specific content in %{gemdir} OK - Package is noarch FIX - Mark the LICENSE file as %doc FIX - License info is not accurate The license seems to be BSD, but not quite. Needs to be clarified -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review