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-aws - Ruby interface to Amazon Web Services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439588 ------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx 2008-04-03 00:35 EST ------- MUST Items: OK - rpmlint is clean on SRPM, RPM and installed package OK - is a Ruby library and follows Ruby Naming Guidelines OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec OK - package meets Packaging Guidelines and Ruby Packaging Guidelines + Are the following needed even after explicit requirements are placed on the ABI? BuildRequires: ruby Requires: ruby OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines OK - License field meets actual license OK - upstream license file included in %doc OK - spec file uses American English OK - spec file is legible OK - sources match upstream sources OK - package builds successfully OK - ExcludeArch not needed OK - build dependencies correctly listed OK - no locales OK - no shared libraries OK - package is not relocatable OK - file and directory ownership OK - no duplicates in %file OK - file permissions set properly OK - %clean present OK - macros used consistently OK - contains code and permissable content OK - -doc is provided + Is the -doc sub-package really needed? Can't we have the examples in the main package itself? The size of the main package is 29K and that of -doc is 6.1K. After installation the -doc package adds only 40K. OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime OK - no header files OK - no static libraries OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no library files OK - -devel not needed OK - no libtool archives OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages OK - buildroot correctly prepped OK - all file names valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - upstream provides license text + Upstream could be requested to clarify the version of GPL. xx - no translations for description and summary OK - package builds in mock successfully OK - package builds on all supported architectures OK - package functions as expected OK - scriptlets not needed OK - subpackage need not require base package + If it is decided to have a separate -doc package, its presence can be mentioned in the description of the base package. OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no file dependencies +---------------------------------+ | This package is APPROVED by me. | +---------------------------------+ -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review