[Bug 437574] Review Request: ruby-pg - A Ruby interface for the PostgreSQL database engine
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Oct 10 13:49:03 UTC 2008
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Jon Ciesla <limb at jcomserv.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
CC| |limb at jcomserv.net
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |limb at jcomserv.net
--- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla <limb at jcomserv.net> 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 at fawkes SPECS]$ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/i386/ruby-pg-*
ruby-pg.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7.9.2008.02.05
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.
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
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.
More information about the package-review