Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jhrozek/ruby-plugman/ruby-PlugMan.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jhrozek/ruby-plugman/ruby-PlugMan-0.0.3-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: PlugMan is a simple and effective plug-in framework for building extensible Ruby applications. If you want plug-ins or extensions in your application, PlugMan is for you
This is a informal review.Note that iam in need of sponsor Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [!] Rpmlint output: ruby-PlugMan.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. where are README PlugMan.pdf ? [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type:Ruby [x] 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 is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package :77203c501e2cf674fbc59ecb5a013c17 MD5SUM upstream package:77203c501e2cf674fbc59ecb5a013c17 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR: Arches excluded: Why: [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. why BUILDREQUIRES:ruby ? ruby(abi) =1.8 is enough also there is no need for ruby(gems) for doc package. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [x] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
It would be good to respond to the above commentary.