[Bug 721066] Review Request: rubygem-image_factory_console - QMF Console for Aeolus Image Factory

[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=721066

--- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi <mmorsi@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-15 09:51:38 EDT ---
Spec: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/rubygem-image_factory_console.spec
SRPM:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/rubygem-image_factory_console-0.4.0-2.fc15.src.rpm


(In reply to comment #1)
> Initial review:
> 
> 1)  There is no COPYING or LICENSE file in the sources.  We should fix that in
> the upstream aeolus repository, to make it clear what license this particular
> piece of code is under.

Agreed, though from the Fedora submission perspective, not a blocker.


> 2)  Even if we take the GPLv2+ as the license (which is what the rest of the
> conductor is under), the license listed in the SPEC is wrong.  It says GPLv2+
> or Ruby, which is not true; it is just GPLv2+

Done


> 3)  No need for a BuildRoot anymore
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag)

Done


> 4)  No need for a %clean section anymore
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean)

Done


> 5)  No need for %defattr in %files
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions)

Done


> 6)  We probably want to make the Requires: rubygems and BuildRequires: rubygems
> into Requires: ruby(rubygems) and BuildRequires: ruby(rubygems), respectively.

Hrm, why? The guidelines state "The package must have a Requires and a
BuildRequires on rubygems"

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Gems



> [ FAIL ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
> The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Gems
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL - clalance: this is a bit
> problematic in that we don't have releases separate from the main conductor
> code.  We should probably follow the recommendations in the SourceURL link
> above and put a comment in describing how to generate the gem.

Done



> [ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the 
>          actual license

Done

-- 
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


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