[Bug 708934] Review Request: rubygem-pg - A Ruby interface to the PostgreSQL RDBMS

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708934

--- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> 2011-05-31 07:24:44 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > > Imho in license should be postgresql instead of BSD.
> > 
> > I have explicitly asked upstream about versions and they state that the content
> > of BSD file is wrong, but the BSD license is correct. The upstream issue is
> > referenced in .spec file, so I think we should be OK.
> > 
> From your comment (License is not that clear) isn't clear, that you have
> statement from upstream. Sometimes is in specfile included email, where was
> license claimed.

I would expect that reviewer could click on the link on the same line to see
what is going on, but my expectations might be overly high.

> And you should fix new rpmlint complaints:
> rpmlint rubygem-pg-doc-0.11.0-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
> rubygem-pg-doc.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/pg-0.11.0/ri/PGconn/nonblocking%3f-i.yaml %3f
> rubygem-pg-doc.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/pg-0.11.0/ri/PGconn/internal_encoding%3d-i.yaml %3d
> rubygem-pg-doc.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/pg-0.11.0/ri/PGresult/%5b%5d-i.yaml %5b
> rubygem-pg-doc.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/pg-0.11.0/ri/PGresult/%5b%5d-i.yaml %5d

These warnings needs to be ignored, since these are valid documentation file
names. The filenames are derived from method names, which can contain
characters such as []!=

> Also license is not packaged in any of sub-packages.

It is not required, since the subpackage requires the base package. This is
quote form guidelines: If a subpackage is dependent (either implicitly or
explicitly) upon a base package (where a base package is defined as a resulting
binary package from the same source RPM which contains the appropriate license
texts as %doc), it is not necessary for that subpackage to also include those
license texts as %doc.

-- 
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.