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: rubygem-krb5-auth - Kerberos binding for Ruby https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447532 ------- Additional Comments From clalance@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-21 14:26 EST ------- + rpmlint output Silent according to packager + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm + package successfully builds on at least one architecture n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available - reviewer should build the package in mock - the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures + review should test the package functions as described n/a scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin RubyGem specific: + packages that contain Ruby Gems must be called rubygem-%{gemname} where gemname is the name from the Gem's specification. + source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive; the version of the package must be the Gem's version + the package must have a Requires and a BuildRequires on rubygems + package must provide rubygem(%{gemname}) where gemname is the name from the Gem's specification. For every dependency on a Gem named gemdep, the package must contain a Requires on rubygem(%{gemdep}) with the same version constraints as the Gem - The %prep and %build sections of the specfile should be empty. Because this package wants to build -debuginfo RPMs, it actually does the building/installing as you would from source. Therefore, the %prep and %build have normal build steps. + The Gem must be installed into %{gemdir} defined as %define gemdir %(ruby -rubygems -e 'puts Gem::dir' 2>/dev/null) + The install should be performed with the command gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gemdir} --force %{SOURCE0} (this package also include the --rdoc switch, which should be fine) + The package must own the following files and directories: %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/ %{gemdir}/cache/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem %{gemdir}/specifications/%{gemname}-%{version}.gemspec + Architecture-specific content must not be installed into %{gemdir} + If the Gem only contains pure Ruby code, it must be marked as BuildArch: noarch. If the Gem contains binary content (e.g., for a database driver), it must be marked as architecture specific, and all architecture specific content must be moved from the %{gemdir} to the `%{ruby_sitearch}` directory during %install This package is the latter; it is arch specific, and moves all of the stuff ino ruby_sitearch as specified. One minor issue with the package is that the COPYING file is in there twice, because it is added once by the natural copying of the make output, and added again because of the %doc COPYING in the %files section. Very minor, though. This looks good to go. APPROVED -- 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