Bug 237379 (ruby-amazon)
Summary: | Review Request: ruby-amazon - Ruby interface to Amazon Web Services | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | stefmanos |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | chitlesh:
fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-05-08 12:55:56 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 237382 |
Description
Mamoru TASAKA
2007-04-21 17:01:33 UTC
Be aware that including the rdocs brings an unwanted file conflict with a file provided ruby-ri (i.e. %{rdocpath}Fixnum/cdesc-Fixnum.yaml) http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/ruby-amazon.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/ruby-amazon-0.9.2-2.fc7.src.rpm ---------------------------------------- * Sun Apr 22 2007 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp> - 0.9.2-2 - Don't provide rdoc files to aboid unwanted conflict with ri Is there any reason why you left the contents of the folder "test" behind ? There might be 2 kinds of users which could use this package: * a user which wants to install a package which depends on this package * a user which wants to use this package to create his/her own software. Hence in this case, the contents of the folder "test" might be considered as examples to him/her. Well, if you want me to include all files under test/ directory as documentation, I want to create -doc subpackage because test/ directory are by 3 times larger than ruby-amazon package itself. What do you think? ------------------------------------------------- 180K /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/amazon 12K /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/amazon.rb 592K test One more comment Including test/ directory results in making this rpm contain almost all files of original tarball. (In reply to comment #4) > Well, if you want me to include all files under test/ directory > as documentation, I want to create -doc subpackage because > test/ directory are by 3 times larger than ruby-amazon package > itself. What do you think? -doc subpackage would be appropriate. (In reply to comment #5) > One more comment > Including test/ directory results in making this rpm contain > almost all files of original tarball. is it wrong ? (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Well, if you want me to include all files under test/ directory > > as documentation, I want to create -doc subpackage because > > test/ directory are by 3 times larger than ruby-amazon package > > itself. What do you think? > > -doc subpackage would be appropriate. Updated. http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/ruby-amazon.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/ruby-amazon-0.9.2-3.fc7.src.rpm ---------------------------------------------------- * Tue May 2 2007 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp> - 0.9.2-3 - Split documentation Any issues left for this package? MUST Items: - MUST: rpmlint's output is clean - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name} - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package is licensed (GPL) with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - MUST: the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible. - MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least i386. - MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires. - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. - MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths - MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable - MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates. - MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: There are no Large documentation files - MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. - MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries - MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix - MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives - MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING - SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386. - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane. - SHOULD: No subpackages present. APPROVED Thank you! Request for CVS admin: ----------------------------------------------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ruby-amazon Short Description: Ruby interface to Amazon Web Services Owners: mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp Branches: devel FC-6 FC-5 InitialCC: (nobody) ----------------------------------------------- Just for note: Rebuild for FC-6/5 is done. Rebuild for devel is currently stopped due to koji side problem Rebuild for devel also done. Thank you for the review!! |