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-activesupport - Support and utility classes used by the Rails framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361201 ------- Additional Comments From sseago@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-07 11:56 EST ------- OK - rpmlint 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 - 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 OK - BuildRequires sufficient OK - File permissions set properly (except for rpmlint error below) 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 - Package is noarch ??? - BuildRoot value: not sure if this is really a problem, but it looks like %{release} is omitted: BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) vs. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) FIX - README, CHANGELOG not installed as %doc general doc question: docs are included as regular gem files in %{geminstdir}, but not in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} as in some of the packages Is there a clear preference for doc location? -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review