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=458139 --- Comment #3 from Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-21 15:37:23 EDT --- * General XX - Package name The secondary package delivering the binary library should be delivered in a package named "ruby-pam-lib". XX - License info is accurate XX - License tag is correct and licenses are approved The website says LGPL without version. The spec says LGPLv2+. The COPYING file in the GEM lists the original authors name with no mention of LGPL. OK - License files are installed as %doc 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 - rpmlint is silent * Package a rubygem OK - Package is named rubygem-%{gemname} XX - Source points to full URL of gem Source0 is just the filename, not the full URL for downloading the source. OK - Package version identical with gem version XX - Package Requires and BuildRequires rubygems No "Requires: rubygems" in the spec. 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 ** noarch rubygem OK - No arch-specific content in %{gemdir} OK - Package is noarch ** arch rubygem OK - No arch specific content in %{gemdir} OK - Defines ruby_sitearch from rbconfig OK - arch specific content moved to %{ruby_sitearch} -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review