Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-07-06 00:08 EST -------
My apologies; somehow this managed to slip my mind.

The first thing I notice is that the included test suite doesn't get run; it has
a dependency on FlexMock which of course isn't in Extras.  I don't think it
should block this package, but it would definitely be nice to get FlexMock into
extras so that the test suite can be turned on.

The gemspec file looks like a source of useful data; I wonder if we could use it
to generate a reasonable starting spec file.
 
The site{lib,arch} thing should be resolved now.  The guidelines say sitearchdir
and sitelib dir; is that we really wanted to go with?

There's no ruby(abi) requirement.

Interestingly, BR: ruby really is required; ruby-devel only pulls in ruby-libs.

Is the explicit sqlite requirement necessary?  rpm finds the libsqlite3.so.0
dependency on its own.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
? specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X No ruby(abi) requirement.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
   56e47e1736bd50e2b71f11726ff9ecdd  sqlite3-ruby-1.1.0.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   ruby(sqlite3)
   sqlite3_api.so()(64bit)
   ruby-sqlite3 = 1.1.0-3.fc6
  =
   libruby.so.1.8()(64bit)
   libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit)
   sqlite >= 3
* shared libraries are present, but internal to ruby.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
O %check is present; dependencies not yet available for running test suite.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to