Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219732
Summary: Review Request: ruby-fam - Gamin/FAM bindings for Ruby Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dlutter@redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-fam.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-fam-0.2.0-1.src.rpm Description: FAM-Ruby is a Ruby interface to SGI's File Alteration Monitor (http://oss.sgi.com/projects/fam/). FAM allows you to monitor files and directories for changes (file modification, creation, and removal) -- in an event-driven manner.
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-fam - Gamin/FAM bindings for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219732
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |kevin@tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-01-13 01:25 EST ------- 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.
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-fam - Gamin/FAM bindings for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219732
------- Additional Comments From dlutter@redhat.com 2007-01-17 14:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1)
Issues:
- 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.
- 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
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-fam - Gamin/FAM bindings for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219732
------- Additional Comments From jeff@ocjtech.us 2007-01-17 15:43 EST ------- (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.
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-fam - Gamin/FAM bindings for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219732
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-01-17 16:33 EST ------- 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.
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-fam - Gamin/FAM bindings for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219732
------- Additional Comments From dlutter@redhat.com 2007-01-17 20:45 EST ------- 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
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-fam - Gamin/FAM bindings for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219732
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-01-17 20:55 EST ------- 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.
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-fam - Gamin/FAM bindings for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219732
dlutter@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla