Bug 708970

- rpmlint OK
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK
- license field must match actual license ?
 I found LGPL without version.
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc ?
 You should add LGPL statement into doc.
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK

resolvedeps-f16 ~/Downloads/rubygem-Platform-0.4.0-1.fc16.noarch.rpm

rpm -qp --provides ~/Downloads/rubygem-Platform-0.4.0-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
rubygem(Platform) = 0.4.0
rubygem-Platform = 0.4.0-1.fc16

rpm -qp --requires ~/Downloads/rubygem-Platform-0.4.0-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
ruby  
ruby(abi) = 1.8
rubygems  
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1

So, only problem is the license.

(In reply to comment #1)

> - license field must match actual license ?
>  I found LGPL without version.

See the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and you will find that if somebody states LGPL, it means actually LGPLv2+ and the short name is LGPLv2+. There is no LGPL short name listed.

> - text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc ?
>  You should add LGPL statement into doc.

What is meant by that? I have no license file, so I have nothing to include. I may request that file from upstream.

(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> 
> > - license field must match actual license ?
> >  I found LGPL without version.
> 
> See the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and you will find that if
> somebody states LGPL, it means actually LGPLv2+ and the short name is LGPLv2+.
> There is no LGPL short name listed.
> 
Ok.
> > - text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc ?
> >  You should add LGPL statement into doc.
> 
> What is meant by that? I have no license file, so I have nothing to include. I
> may request that file from upstream.
License must be included in every package. Details about sub-packages: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing

MUST: If (and only if) 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 must be included in %doc.


Ok, this package contain almost nothing, so you don't have anything to package here.

APPROVED

Thank you for your review.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-Platform
Short Description: Hopefully robust platform sensing
Owners: vondruch
Branches: 
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).