[Bug 711229] Review Request: ruby-spqr - easy QMF agent framework for Ruby
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Nov 4 18:13:14 UTC 2011
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=711229
Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |tcallawa at redhat.com
Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tcallawa at redhat.com
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> 2011-11-04 14:13:12 EDT ---
== Review ==
Good:
- rpmlint checks return:
ruby-spqr.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/ruby-spqr-0.3.4/examples/hello.rb
ruby-spqr.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/ruby-spqr-0.3.4/examples/logservice.rb /usr/bin/env
spqr-gen.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xml -> XML, ml, x ml
spqr-gen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spqr-gen.rb
All safe to ignore.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (ASL 2.0) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
(d3ef30d1000f1f00187cc1a6d59d8713e37701b21d4ff4c90368f55a33ad6e5a)
- package compiles on f16 (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
It all looks good, so I'm marking this as APPROVED.
One minor item: I don't think there is a need for Requires: ruby, since you
have Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8, but this should be safe to remove before
committing to Fedora git.
--
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
mailing list