https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090188
--- Comment #2 from Šimon Lukašík <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Petr Lautrbach from comment #1) > An informal review by fedora-review: Thank You! > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/plautrba/1090188-rubygem-openscap/licensecheck.txt You are right. I have fixed license tag from gplv2 to gplv2+. > [!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. It actually does. The %gem_install is used in %prep section as adviced at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby > [!]: Test suite should not be run by rake. Yes, generally it is good to avoid rake because of new dependencies. However, in this case the makefile is very simple and does not bring any unneeded dependencies. > rubygem-openscap.noarch: W: no-documentation Documentation is to be shipped in rubygem-openscap-doc sub-package. > rubygem-openscap.src:55: W: macro-in-comment %gem_dir This should be fixed in http://isimluk.fedorapeople.org/ruby-openscap/0.1.0-2/rubygem-openscap.spec http://isimluk.fedorapeople.org/ruby-openscap/0.1.0-2/rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm Please review! Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
