[Bug 179940] Review Request: ruby-http-access2
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Feb 28 16:53:25 UTC 2006
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-http-access2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179940
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-02-28 11:53 EST -------
We have a specfile template for Ruby now; it would be best to follow it
especially as it fixes things like %{ruby_sitelib}. Ruby packaging isn't as far
along as Perl or Python so I think it's important that everything is consistent.
Onto the review:
package is properly named (although there aren't naming guidelines for Ruby yet,
the name matches the tarball and the necessary 'require' line).
2.0.6 is the current version.
The summary is a bit awkward; suggest changing "Accessing" to "Access" or "A
library for accessing".
I believe the licensing is more complex than just GPL since the package allows
distribution under Ruby's dual license, but I don't know what the common name of
the other license is.
The URL given seems to be throwing an internal server error for me.
The specfile template prefers:
BuildRequires: ruby ruby-devel
Requires: %{ruby_sitelib}
where %{ruby_sitelib} is defined earlier in the template.
The package should be BuildArch: noarch as it doesn't produce any binaries.
Suggest deleting the last line for the description.
Suggest running the provided tests in a %check section if this is reasonable.
(It probably isn't if this requires network access.)
Please use %{ruby_sitelib} instead hardcoding the Ruby version in %files.
--
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.
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list