[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |kevin at tummy.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2006-10-14 14:16 EST -------
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
See below - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
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:
c1f3a8033a047a7046848833445ed496  luma-2.3.tar.bz2
c1f3a8033a047a7046848833445ed496  luma-2.3.tar.bz2.1
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.
OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
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.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version

Issues:

1. The lumadata, lumalib and plugins macros seem like overkill to me.
Not a blocker, but I would prefer if you remove them. It would make the spec
more readable, IMHO.

2. On installing and trying to run, I get:

Could not read logger settings file. Reason:
[Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/home/kevin/.luma/luma'
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/luma", line 71, in ?
    startApplication()
  File "/usr/bin/luma", line 44, in startApplication
    gui.loadPlugins(splash)
  File "/usr/share/luma/lib/base/gui/MainWin.py", line 186, in loadPlugins
    pluginObject = PluginLoader(self.checkToLoad())
  File "/usr/share/luma/lib/base/backend/PluginLoader.py", line 53, in __init__
    self.importPluginMetas(pluginsToLoad)
  File "/usr/share/luma/lib/base/backend/PluginLoader.py", line 84, in 
importPluginMetas
    for x in self.pluginDirList:
TypeError: iteration over non-sequence


-- 
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.