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=565858 --- Comment #14 from Michal Fojtik <mfoj...@redhat.com> 2010-02-19 04:38:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) > For -4: > > * %exclude > - Well, perhaps you used %exclude to group files by license, > however %exclude completely removes listed files from > the binary rpm, even if %exclude'd files are listed later > (in the same subpackage %files list, %exclude'd files > can appear in other subpackages). > > You'll see that %exclude'd files are actually not in > rebuilt binary rpm. FIXED > > * Directory ownership issue > - The directory %{geminstdir}/bin itself is not owned by > any packages. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories#Common_Mistakes FIXED (hopefully ;) > > * License tag > - In this case we should use "(GPLv2 or Ruby) and MIT and BSD" (i.e. > need parentheses) FIXED (Sorry for this one) > > * ppc64 > - For rake spec2 failing issue, I think > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > %check > %ifarch ppc64 > # Disable tests > exit 0 > %endif > pushd .%{geminstdir} > .... > .... > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > is preferable. FIXED. Anyway I'm not sure if this gem will work on this architecture at all. If basic test fails with SEGV I guess this gem will not work properly. > > * Miscs > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > rubygem-thin.src: E: description-line-too-long C Thin is a Ruby web server > ..... > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > - It is suggested that one line should not contain more than > 79 characters. FIXED. Spec URL: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-thin.spec SRPM URL: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-thin-1.2.5-5.fc12.src.rpm -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
