Bug 453944 - Review Request: ruby-taglib - Ruby library wrapping the Taglib library
Summary: Review Request: ruby-taglib - Ruby library wrapping the Taglib library
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Hemant Goyal
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2008-07-03 12:40 UTC by Mamoru TASAKA
Modified: 2008-07-18 18:19 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-07-18 18:19:50 UTC
Type: ---
goyal.hemant: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Mamoru TASAKA 2008-07-03 12:40:12 UTC
Spec URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/ruby-taglib/ruby-taglib.spec
SRPM URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/ruby-taglib/ruby-taglib-1.1-1.fc.src.rpm
ruby-taglib is a simple dl-based wrapper of
Taglib's C library.  It's short and sweet, because the C API is written by
someone who knows how to use OO programming, and Ruby with dl just
makes it all too easy to wrap such a library.

koji scratch build:
For dist-f10:
For dist-f9-updates-candidate:

Listed on wishlist. Very simple package.

Comment 1 Hemant Goyal 2008-07-18 08:18:25 UTC
[X]   - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review. 

[X]   MUST: spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
      format %{name}.spec

[X]   MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

[X] - MUST: Fedora approved license - MIT License

[X] - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual

    - 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.

[X] - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.

[X] - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 

[X] - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
      as provided in the spec URL. 

md5sum ruby-taglib-1.1.tar.bz2 
462d2717c912251b6d9693e0ac40c08f  ruby-taglib-1.1.tar.bz2
md5sum ruby-taglib-1.1_upstream.tar.bz2 
462d2717c912251b6d9693e0ac40c08f  ruby-taglib-1.1_upstream.tar.bz2

[X] - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms
	    on at least one supported architecture.

[X] - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.

[X] - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly - No localized files.

[X] - 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.
	    - It just a library package

[X] - MUST: Not a relocatable Package.

[X] - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
	    If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should
            require a package which does create that directory.
            Refer to the Guidelines for examples.'
           - BuildRequires:	ruby specified for ruby_libdir directory

[X] - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.

[X] - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.

[X] - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains
      rm -rf %{buildroot}
      - %{__rm} -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT specified in Clean Section

[Please Check]- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.

Perhaps you might want to use %{name}-%{version} in the names of the patches as
well? Just a suggestion..

[X]-  MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.

[X]-  MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.

[X] - MUST: To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
      properly if it is not present.

[X] - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.

[X] - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.

[X] - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
      (for directory ownership and usability).

[X] - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
      then library files that end in .so (without suffix)
      must go in a -devel package.

[X] - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
      package using a fully versioned dependency:
      Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

[X] - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
  removed in the spec.

[X] - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
  %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
  desktop-file-install in the %install section. 

[X] - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
  packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
  should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. T

[X] - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} 

[X] - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


[X] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - Tested
            on Koji.

[X] - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all     
                    supported architectures - noarch package

The package looks fine to me after checking against the Review Guidelines.


Comment 2 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-07-18 13:26:14 UTC
Thank you for your review!

* About patch name:
(In reply to comment #1)
> Perhaps you might want to use %{name}-%{version} in the names of the patches as
> well? Just a suggestion..

Using macros (especially like %version) causes the change of the patches' names
time source package is upgraded, while it is very possible that patches need not be
upgraded even if the source changes. So usually I recommend not to use macros
(especially %{version}) for patches' names.

New Package CVS Request
Package Name:          ruby-taglib
Short Description:     Ruby library wrapping the Taglib library
Owners:                mtasaka
Branches:              F-9 F-8
InitialCC:             (nobody)
Cvsextras Commits:     welcome

Comment 3 Kevin Fenzi 2008-07-18 16:44:03 UTC
cvs done.

Comment 4 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-07-18 18:19:50 UTC
Rebuilt on all branches, requested on bodhi for F-9/8 branches, closing.

Thank you for the review and CVS procedure.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.