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-qpid - qpid's ruby implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229418 nsantos@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From nsantos@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-16 14:19 EST ------- I've reviewed the updated package and I believe it complies with all guidelines, generic and ruby-specific: ruby-qpid-0.1-1.fc7.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec NA - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) NA - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease NA - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint ruby-qpid-0.1-1.fc7.src.rpm W: ruby-qpid non-standard-group Development/Ruby (this warning is ok, based on previously approved packages) -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK * BuildRequires are proper OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English NA * make a -doc sub-package if necessary NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) NA * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs -- $ rpm -qp /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/ruby-qpid-0.1-1.noarch.rpm --requires amqp rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 ruby ruby(abi) = 1.8 $ rpm -qp /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/ruby-qpid-0.1-1.noarch.rpm --provides ruby(qpid) = 0.1 ruby-qpid = 0.1-1 -- OK * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs -- $ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/ruby-qpid-0.1-1.noarch.rpm W: ruby-qpid non-standard-group Development/Ruby (this warning is ok, based on previously approved packages) -- SHOULD: OK * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc OK * package should build on i386 OK * package should build in mock Additional ruby-specific guidelines: OK * package must indicate the Ruby ABI version it depends: -- Requires: ruby Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 -- OK * name of a ruby extension/library package must be of the form ruby-UPSTREAM -- ruby-qpid -- OK * a ruby extension/library package must indicate what it provides with a Provides: ruby(LIBRARY) = VERSION declaration in the spec file. -- Provides: ruby(qpid) = %{version} -- OK * Pure Ruby packages must be built as noarch packages. -- BuildArch: noarch -- OK * The Ruby library files in a pure Ruby package must be placed into Config::CONFIG["sitelibdir"] -- %{!?ruby_sitelib: %define ruby_sitelib %(ruby -rrbconfig -e 'puts Config::CONFIG["sitelibdir"]')} (...) install -dm 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{ruby_sitelib}/qpid install -pm 644 qpid/*.rb $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{ruby_sitelib}/qpid -- I'm marking this as APPROVED. -- 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