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-zoom - Ruby binding to ZOOM Alias: ruby-zoom https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237381 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-24 22:59 EST ------- This is my first review attempt of a ruby package, so please, be kind -- I'm quite willing to be educated :) doc/ and README should be in %doc. Add these, and I'll approve. + source files match upstream: e38f664296b70b2d74962359f381cfb7 ruby-zoom-0.2.2.tar.gz e38f664296b70b2d74962359f381cfb7 ../ruby-zoom-0.2.2.tar.gz + package meets naming and versioning guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license field matches the actual license. + license is open source-compatible. (LGPL) License text included in package. + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. + package installs properly + debuginfo package looks complete. + rpmlint is silent. final provides and requires are sane: ** ruby-zoom-0.2.2-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm == rpmlint == provides ruby(zoom) = 0.2.2-1.fc6 zoom.so()(64bit) ruby-zoom = 0.2.2-1.fc6 == requires libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libexslt.so.0()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libnsl.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libruby.so.1.8()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libwrap.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxslt.so.1()(64bit) libyaz.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) ruby ruby(abi) = 1.8 ** ruby-zoom-debuginfo-0.2.2-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm == rpmlint == provides zoom.so.debug()(64bit) ruby-zoom-debuginfo = 0.2.2-1.fc6 == requires O %check is NOT present -- but there appear to be no tests + no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. + owns the directories it creates. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets present. + code, not content. + documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. + %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. + no headers. + no pkgconfig files. + no libtool .la droppings. + not a GUI app. -- 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