Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 219732
Summary: | Review Request: ruby-fam - Gamin/FAM bindings for Ruby | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | David Lutterkort <lutter> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Kevin Fenzi <kevin> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | hbrock |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-01-23 20:04:45 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: | 163779 |
Description
David Lutterkort
2006-12-15 00:03:13 UTC
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (BSD) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: ecc4bb28c44a3bcef9e423125a06bd09 fam-ruby-0.2.0.tar.gz ecc4bb28c44a3bcef9e423125a06bd09 fam-ruby-0.2.0.tar.gz.1 4ebdf619370f663d06015d680f0ae26f279676e3 fam-ruby-0.2.0.tar.gz 4ebdf619370f663d06015d680f0ae26f279676e3 fam-ruby-0.2.0.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. See below -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs See below - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Should there really be a devel subpackage just for docs? If there does need to be one for some reason it should Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}, but I don't see a reason to have one, unless I am missing something... 2. Should the 'Requires: gamin' be needed? rpm already puts in a requires on libfam.so.0 which is provided by the gamin package. (In reply to comment #1) > > Issues: > > 1. Should there really be a devel subpackage just for docs? > If there does need to be one for some reason it should > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}, but I don't see a > reason to have one, unless I am missing something... The main reason why I did that is because the docs wind up being several times the size of the actual library; and they are only of interest to developers. But if you think saving space/bandwidth this way is a bad idea, I'll put them into the main package. > 2. Should the 'Requires: gamin' be needed? > rpm already puts in a requires on libfam.so.0 which is provided by > the gamin package. You are right - I removed that explicit dependency. New stuff: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-fam.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-fam-0.2.0-2.src.rpm (In reply to comment #2) > > The main reason why I did that is because the docs wind up being several times > the size of the actual library; and they are only of interest to developers. But > if you think saving space/bandwidth this way is a bad idea, I'll put them into > the main package. Create a -doc subpackage. Yeah, you could create a -doc subpackage. I personally don't think it's really worth it. The docs amount to about 25k when they are compressed in the rpm, and about 120k on disk. Thats not really worth the overhead of another package IMHO. If you do want to keep them in another subpackage, I think -doc makes more sense than devel. If they are in a devel package people might think they need that devel package to do any development, rather than just being full of docs. Ok, you guys convinced me; now there's only one package for everything, no subpackages. (Though I still somehwat cringe at the idea of wasting people's disk space, even if it's only 100k) New stuff: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-fam.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-fam-0.2.0-3.src.rpm ok. Keep in mind that if someone is really tight on disk space they can always install with '--excludedocs' and not have to worry about them. :) I see no further issues, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this review request NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. |