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=708990
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-05-30 08:33:48 EDT --- - rpmlint OK - package must be named according to Guidelines OK - spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK - package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK - package must be licensed with Fedora approved license ? - license field must match actual license ? - text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK - sources must match the upstream source OK - package MUST successfully compile and build OK - architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK - build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires ? - handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK - shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK - packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK - package must own all directories that it creates OK - permissions on files must be set properly OK - package must consistently use macros OK - package must contain code, or permissable content OK - large documentation must go in a -doc OK - %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK - header files must be in a -devel package OK - static libraries must be in a -static package OK - library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK - devel package usually require base package OK - packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK - GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK - packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK
Requires: rubygems >= 0 Why must be requires bigger than 0?
Where is Ruby license stated? I didn't find it in package.
You should have text of license in package.
'gem install' should be in install part of spec file.