[Bug 207472] Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-10-04 00:19 EST -------
One additional rpmlint issue:

W: ruby-activesupport unversioned-explicit-provides ruby(active_support)

I wonder if this provide shouldn't be versioned.  (I know the guidelines don't
say so, but perhaps we missed something when we wrote them.)

As for the non-executable-script "error", this often happens in Python packages.
 There, the standard that we have used for deciding whether the complaint is
bogus or not is whether the file has any code that would be executed if you did
pass it through the interpreter.  If the file has only class and function
definitions, it needs to have the shebang line removed.  It seems that these
five files fall into the latter category.  However, we're basically making up
some of the rules for Ruby as we go along, so we should probably talk about it a
bit.  Personally I don't understand why the shebang lines are there, but I can't
imagine that it hurts anything.  It's a comment, nothing more.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   4e3fce3bb07e1f66e6f40406291e3266  activesupport-1.3.1.tgz
* package meets naming and packaging 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.  License text included in package (in
lib/active_support.rb)
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
X rpmlint is silent.
? final provides and requires are sane:
?  ruby(active_support)
   ruby-activesupport = 1.3.1-1.fc6
  =
   ruby(abi) = 1.8
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* 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.

-- 
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.