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-fam - Gamin/FAM bindings for Ruby https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219732 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-01-13 01:25 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (BSD) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: ecc4bb28c44a3bcef9e423125a06bd09 fam-ruby-0.2.0.tar.gz ecc4bb28c44a3bcef9e423125a06bd09 fam-ruby-0.2.0.tar.gz.1 4ebdf619370f663d06015d680f0ae26f279676e3 fam-ruby-0.2.0.tar.gz 4ebdf619370f663d06015d680f0ae26f279676e3 fam-ruby-0.2.0.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. See below -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs See below - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Should there really be a devel subpackage just for docs? If there does need to be one for some reason it should Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}, but I don't see a reason to have one, unless I am missing something... 2. Should the 'Requires: gamin' be needed? rpm already puts in a requires on libfam.so.0 which is provided by the gamin package. -- 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