[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=477533


Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx>  2009-01-18 17:30:57 EDT ---
Hi Mamoru,
I reviewed this package. There are a few minor things to go through:

* rpmlint gives bunch of dangling-symlink warnings. But these are resolved by
the dependencies by the packages, so it is OK.
The other rpmlint complaints are:
   rubygem-mechanize.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mechanize-0.9.0/lib/www/mechanize/chain/post_connect_hook.rb
      Is this needed?
   rubygem-mechanize-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation
      I see that both rubygem-gettext-doc and rubygem-zoom-doc install their
documentation (examples,test) inside %doc
      What is the reason that this package is different?
   rubygem-mechanize-doc.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mechanize-0.9.0/test/htdocs/google.html
      This is possibly a wrong permission error. It can easily be fixed.
   ruby-mechanize.noarch: W: no-documentation
      This one can be ignored.

* I don't think we need to package Manifest.txt. Do we usually package manifest
files on ruby packages?

* The license file and the website license page say GPLv2+. The source code
files do not indicate a license. I think setting the license as GPLc2+ will be
more appropriate.

* Latest version must be packaged. I can't find any information to confirm
this. Where is download section on the website?

* Ruby guidelines say: "A ruby extension/library package must indicate what it
provides with a Provides: ruby(LIBRARY) = VERSION declaration in the spec file"
   So I think 
      Provides:       ruby(%{gemname}) = %{version}-%{release}
      Provides:       rubygem(%{gemname}) = %{version}-%{release}
   must be changed to 
      Provides:       ruby(%{gemname}) = %{version}
      Provides:       rubygem(%{gemname}) = %{version}

* Do we need this line:?
   #Requires:      rubygem(hoe)

-- 
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.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]