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=676308 Mamoru Tasaka <mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> 2011-03-13 12:57:07 EDT --- If you are still interested in importing this package into Fedora, I will have a look at this one. Instead I will appreciate it if you would review one of my review requests (e.g. bug 678678) Some notes: * Explicit version-specific Requires - Please consider if you really have to write explicit version-specific Requires like rubygems ">= 1.2". * Usually when packages shipped on currently supported Fedora branches all satisfy such version requirements, we don't add such explicit version Requires: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires * Remove obsolete stuff - rm -rf %{buildroot} at the top of %install is no longer needed (if you intend to import this only on Fedora). ! Directly installing gem archive into %buildroot - I always recommend to install gem archive once under %_builddir to make it sure that no additional files are generated or files are not modified after installation is done. * For example, some testsuites generate additional executables or log files or modify files, which frequently confuses %files entry or leads to rpmbuild failure. And because of the same reason, it is recommended that %buildroot is touched only in %install section (i.e. executing %check under %buildroot is discouraged). -- 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
