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=708934 --- Comment #3 from VÃt Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-31 06:04:19 EDT --- I have uploaded new revision: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-pg.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-pg-0.11.0-2.fc16.src.rpm (In reply to comment #1) > - rpmlint ? > rpmlint rubygem-pg-0.11.0-1.fc16.i686.rpm > rubygem-pg.i686: W: no-soname > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/lib/pg_ext.so I am not going to fix this issue since Ruby does not care. > rubygem-pg.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/ext/compat.c > rubygem-pg.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/ext/compat.h > rubygem-pg.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/ext/extconf.h > rubygem-pg.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/ext/pg.c > rubygem-pg.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/ext/pg.h I have completely removed the "ext" directory, since the extension is build anyway. Nobody should miss it. > rubygem-pg.i686: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/lib/pg.rb 0644L /usr/bin/env I have removed the shebang from this file, as well as from others, and fixed shebangs in spec files. > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. > > - 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 OK > - 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 > > postgresql-server postgresql-devel should be >= as stated in README file. Even the RHEL-4 contains already PostgreSQL 7.4, so I doubt that it would help anything. > Imho in license should be postgresql instead of BSD. I have explicitly asked upstream about versions and they state that the content of BSD file is wrong, but the BSD license is correct. The upstream issue is referenced in .spec file, so I think we should be OK. > Why is 'gem install' in prep? I believe install is doing install, so it should > be in install part of spec file. The true is that "gem install" is doing all the actions, i.e. %prep, %build and %install in one step. So it is not that clear where the install should be. But the %prep section seems to be the most appropriate. -- 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review