Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-postgres https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193161 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-30 20:51 EST ------- I note you use a buildroot of %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root instead of the usual %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n). This isn't a blocker and in fact is under some discussion but I did want to bring attention to it in case it was unintentional. I note that you export CFLAGS, but the generated makefile doesn't seem to make use of it and the compiler is called with a different set of flags that, as a side effect, lead to a busted debuginfo package. Nothing this package depends on seems to own /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/ (or whatever that is for each arch). Other owners are ruby-sqlite4 and kdebindings. I think this package needs to own it as well. (Or that the base ruby package should, which is I suppose is a matter for another bugzilla ticket.) * source files match upstream: 8ef67b3f4b089248f0420baeb0e3b3c8 ruby-postgres-0.7.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. ? build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * BuildRequires are proper. X compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: postgres.so()(64bit) ruby(postgres) = 0.7.1 ruby-postgres = 0.7.1-3.fc6 = libpq.so.4()(64bit) libruby.so.1.8()(64bit) ruby >= 1.3 ruby(abi) = 1.8 * %check is not present; no callable test suite upstream. * shared libraries are present, but internal to ruby. * package is not relocatable. X owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review