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=816699 Bryan Kearney <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] AssignedTo|[email protected] |[email protected] Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Bryan Kearney <[email protected]> 2012-04-30 14:52:00 EDT --- NEEDSWORK * General OK - Package name OK - License info is accurate OK - License tag is correct and licenses are approved 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 NACK - Macro usage is consistent Several of the macros exist already (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Macros) WARN - rpmlint is silent Some issues from the binary. Might be nice to move these to a devel. * Package a rubygem 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 requires gem dependencies correctly OK - Package owns its directories under %gemdir ** 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
