Bug 745219

rpmlint was very clean.
===========
build@~/rpmbuild/SOURCES -> rpmlint ../SPECS/rvm.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
build@~/rpmbuild/SOURCES -> 
===========

here is my review:
############################################
OK - %{?dist} tag is used in release
OK - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
OK - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines

OK - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines (license is LGPLv2)

NA - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun
OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build
koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3423707
OK - The spec file must be written in American English.
OK - The spec file for the package MUST be legible
OK - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
========================
build@~/rpmbuild/SOURCES -> gpg rvm-1.17.tar.gz.asc
gpg: Signature made Wed 24 Mar 2010 12:08:17 AM IST using DSA key ID 997007A2
gpg: Good signature from "Jan Harkes <jaharkes.edu>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 477F 78AA 863A 90A6 2366  4AA1 CE0D 7E10 9970 07A2
========================


OK - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
OK - Permissions on files must be set properly
OK - Each package must have a %clean section
OK - Each package must consistently use macros
OK - The package must contain code, or permissible content 
OK - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage -- No large
documentation
OK - If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
OK - Header files must be in a -devel package -- no devel package
NA - Static libraries must be in a -static package -- no static package
NA - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives

OK - No file conflicts with other packages and no general names.

OK - All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
OK - The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate.
############################################

I didn't install and try the (successful)scratch build of rvm(and it's sub pkgs) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3423708 as there are some missing deps (lwp and lwp devel) -- the other two pkgs you needed. I see they're submitted for 'Package Change Request'

Looks good. [I hope I didn't miss anything, I don't perform reviews as often].

This package is Approved.

Flipped the review flag to +

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: rvm
New Branches: f16
Owners: spot
InitialCC: 

This package is being revived.

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Also unretired devel, please take ownership in pkgdb.

rpc2-2.10-4.fc16,lwp-2.6-4.fc16,rvm-1.17-5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpc2-2.10-4.fc16,lwp-2.6-4.fc16,rvm-1.17-5.fc16

Package rpc2-2.10-4.fc16, lwp-2.6-4.fc16, rvm-1.17-5.fc16:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing rpc2-2.10-4.fc16 lwp-2.6-4.fc16 rvm-1.17-5.fc16'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-14251
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

rpc2-2.10-4.fc16, lwp-2.6-4.fc16, rvm-1.17-5.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.