Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437574 Jon Ciesla <limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla <limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-10 09:49:01 EDT --- rpmlint on SRPM is clean. rpmlint on RPMS: 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [limb@fawkes SPECS]$ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/i386/ruby-pg-* ruby-pg.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7.9.2008.02.05 0.7.9.2008.02.05-1.fc9 The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. ruby-pg.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided ruby-postgres If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package must also be provided in order to provide clean upgrade paths and not cause unnecessary dependency breakage. If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the provides. Fix both. Though indicated to by under the Ruby license, in the spec and on the site, it includes a few copies of the GPL. Why is this? It's not a blocker, just odd. Per Ruby guidelines: ---- Each Ruby package must indicate the Ruby ABI version it depends on with a line like Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 Ruby packages must require ruby at build time with a BuildRequires: ruby, and may indicate the minimal ruby version they need for building. ---- - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig Fix, or explain why this wouldn't be necessary. - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. Are the .h files in ext/ not useful for this purpose? Otherwise, no other blockers on full review. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review