Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458139
--- Comment #3 from Darryl L. Pierce dpierce@redhat.com 2008-08-21 15:37:23 EDT --- * General
XX - Package name
The secondary package delivering the binary library should be delivered in a package named "ruby-pam-lib".
XX - License info is accurate XX - License tag is correct and licenses are approved
The website says LGPL without version. The spec says LGPLv2+. The COPYING file in the GEM lists the original authors name with no mention of LGPL.
OK - License files are installed as %doc OK - Specfile name OK - Specfile is legible OK - No prebuilt binaries included OK - BuildRoot value (one of the recommended values) OK - PreReq not used OK - Source md5sum matches upstream OK - No hardcoded pathnames OK - Package owns all the files it installs OK - 'Requires' create needed unowned directories OK - Package builds successfully on i386 and x86_64 (mock) OK - BuildRequires sufficient OK - File permissions set properly OK - Macro usage is consistent OK - rpmlint is silent
* Package a rubygem
OK - Package is named rubygem-%{gemname} XX - Source points to full URL of gem
Source0 is just the filename, not the full URL for downloading the source.
OK - Package version identical with gem version XX - Package Requires and BuildRequires rubygems
No "Requires: rubygems" in the spec.
OK - Package provides rubygem(%{gemname}) = %version OK - Package requires gem dependencies correctly OK - %prep and %build are empty OK - %gemdir defined properly, and gem installed into it OK - Package owns its directories under %gemdir
** noarch rubygem
OK - No arch-specific content in %{gemdir} OK - Package is noarch
** arch rubygem
OK - No arch specific content in %{gemdir} OK - Defines ruby_sitearch from rbconfig OK - arch specific content moved to %{ruby_sitearch}
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org