[Bug 827809] Review Request: genbackupdata - A program to generate test data for testing backup software

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827809

--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr at sylvestre.me> ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I tried to review your package.
> Nevertheless, as you can see, I decided not to officially assign the review
> to myself, since this is my first attempt and I don't want my errors or
> misunderstandings to affect review quality.

Hi Mattia, no problem at all -- let's go through the points you flagged in the
review, so you can do a full review next time :)


(In reply to comment #1)
> 
> ==== Generic ====
> [!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
> meets
>      other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>      Guidelines.
> 
> The source package does not include the text of the license.
> 
This is a separate issue - there's another item in the review saying the source
package should include the license. For this you can check the license on the
project website

> [!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
>      least one supported primary architecture.
As some of the dependencies (python-ttystatus, in this case) have not been
built yet, you probably need to either wait until they are, or build and
install them yourself for the review.

> [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
>      that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
>      Note: The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the
>      package failed to build because of missing BR
This should probably be a question mark -- you flag this item if the build
requirements are incomplete (e.g. as evidenced by the package not building in
mock, or the build output indicating that some features that should be enabled
are not enabled)

> [?]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Fair enough, since you couldn't see what files are generated

> [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> 
> In the Spec file, License field is GPLv2+. A copy of the license is missing
> from the source, so we cannot be certain which the real license is. Plus,
> the software author states the license is GPLv2+ in "README", but mentions
> GPLv3+ in "setup.py".
> 
Aha, thanks, will try and clarify

> [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
As you can see, the "failure" is often due to rpmlint's dictionary not
understanding technical terms. If you don't think the words it picked up are
actually misspelled, you can just check this ('x') if there are no other issues

> [!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
ps you can install packages not found in standard repos yet using mock: mock
<insert your normal mock options here> install path-to-rpm1 path-to-rpm2 ...

The last missing dependency has actually been approved yesterday, so I'll build
it for Rawhide, F17 and F16 in the next couple of hours, and then add them to
the "buildroot overrides" so that they are available to our Koji build servers
*before* the update review period is over. You'd still need to install them by
hand if you're testing using mock, though (see instructions above) -- just go
to koji.fedoraproject.org and search for the package name and you'll be able to
find and download the RPM.

Don't worry about not doing a full review this time :) You got tripped up by
the package's dependencies not being fully available yet, but it makes for a
more interesting process.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.