[Bug 746079] Review Request: rubygem-grit library for extracting info from a git repository in Ruby
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Oct 26 16:14:03 UTC 2011
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=746079
--- Comment #3 from James Laska <jlaska at redhat.com> 2011-10-26 12:14:02 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Based on my review feedback, I would approve this package. I believe we just
> need to find a sponsor to review my findings and sponsor you.
>
> == MUST requirements ==
>
> > [ WARN ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
> > build produces. The output should be posted in the review.(refer to
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint)
>
> rubygem-grit.noarch: W: no-documentation
>
> The .spec linked in comment#0 is not the same .spec used to build the .src.rpm.
> The .spec linked includes the LICENSE file in the base package (and the -doc
> subpackage). The .spec included in the provided .src.rpm does not. I'd
> suggest using the .spec linked instead.
>
> > diff -u rubygem-grit.src.spec rubygem-grit.spec
> > --- rubygem-grit.src.spec 2011-10-26 10:40:27.096819597 -0400
> > +++ rubygem-grit.spec 2011-10-13 15:42:36.000000000 -0400
> > @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@
> > %{geminstdir}/lib
> > %{gemdir}/cache/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem
> > %{gemdir}/specifications/%{gemname}-%{version}.gemspec
> > +%doc %{geminstdir}/LICENSE
> >
> > %files doc
> > %doc %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}
Hey Joe ... to rephrase, I think the review of the package is fine. But I did
find a minor issue that should be addressed. The .spec file linked in
comment#0 appears to be different from the .spec file included in the src.rpm
in comment#0. I recommend rebuilding the src.rpm using the spec file linked
from comment#0.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list