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-mongrel - A small fast HTTP library and server for Ruby https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=254015 ------- Additional Comments From dlutter@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-23 21:46 EST ------- OK - Package name OK - License info is accurate OK - License tag is correct and licenses are approved 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 - '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 - 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 - Defines ruby_sitearch from rbconfig OK - arch specific content moved to %{ruby_sitearch} Package does not produce debuginfo, but given the gyrations of building rubygems that's not practical. FIX - rpmlint is noisy It warns on the srpm about an unapplied patch; that can be ignored since gems can't be patched in a way that rpmlint will notice On the binary RPM, it complains about a number of things that should be fixed FIX - License files are not installed as %doc Mark LICENSE and COPYING as %doc -- 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