[Bug 439588] Review Request: ruby-aws - Ruby interface to Amazon Web Services

[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-aws - Ruby interface to Amazon Web Services


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439588





------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray at gmail.com  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.