[Bug 242193] Review Request: trac-webadmin - Web interface for administration of Trac

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jun 2 04:09:24 UTC 2007


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: trac-webadmin - Web interface for administration of Trac


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242193


jeff at ocjtech.us changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |jeff at ocjtech.us
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us  2007-06-02 00:09 EST -------
 1 - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
           posted in the review.

  rpmlint is silent.

 2 - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
           Guidelines.

  OK

 3 - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in
           the format %{name}.spec

  OK

 4 - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

  OK (uses the standard Fedora Python package template)

 5 - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible
           license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the
           legal section of Packaging Guidelines.

  OK (BSD)

 6 - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
           actual license.

  OK

 7 - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of
           the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing
           the text of the license(s) for the package must be included
           in %doc.
  
  OK

 8 - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.

  OK

 9 - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the
           reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be
           impossible to perform a review.  Fedora is not the place
           for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW]
           http://www.ioccc.org/).

  OK

10 - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the
           upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers
           should use md5sum for this task.

  Since there is no upstream release, can't compare MD5s, so get a
  little creative with git:

    mkdir tmp
    cd tmp
    svn co -r 4429 http://svn.edgewall.com/repos/trac/sandbox/webadmin/
    cd webadmin/
    ./setup.py sdist
    cd ..
    tar xf ../sources/TracWebAdmin-0.1.2dev-r4429.tar.gz  # the tarball included
with the SRPM
    cd TracWebAdmin-0.1.2dev-r4429/
    git init
    git add .
    git commit -m "From SRPM"
    cd ..
    tar xf webadmin/dist/TracWebAdmin-0.1.2dev-r4429.tar.gz # the tarball built
by setup.py sdist
    cd TracWebAdmin-0.1.2dev-r4429/
    git status

  No changes were reported by "git status" so this check is OK.

11 - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary
           rpms on at least one supported architecture.

  OK (FC6 i386)

12 - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work
           on an architecture, then those architectures should be
           listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed
           in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla,
           describing the reason that the package does not
           compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number
           should then be placed in a comment, next to the
           corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have
           bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should
           put this description in the comment until the package is
           approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the
           long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug
           should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following
           bugs to simplify tracking such issues...

  OK

13 - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires,
           except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of
           Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires
           is optional. Apply common sense.

  OK

14 - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
           using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is
           strictly forbidden.

  OK (No alternate languages)

15 - MUST: If the package contains shared library files located in the
           dynamic linker's default paths, that package must call
           ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple
           subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also
           have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An
           example of the correct syntax for this is...

  OK (No shared library files)

16 - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager
           must state this fact in the request for review, along with
           the rationalization for relocation of that specific
           package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
           blocker.

  OK (Not relocatable)

17 - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it
           does not create a directory that it uses, then it should
           require a package which does create that directory. The
           exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the
           Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ([WWW]
           http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is
           safe to assume that those directories exist.

  OK

18 - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the
           %files listing.

  OK

19 - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables
           should be set with executable permissions, for
           example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...)
           line.

  OK

20 - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains
           rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).

  OK

21 - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in
           the macros section of Packaging Guidelines.

  OK

22 - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This
           is described in detail in the code vs. content section of
           Packaging Guidelines.

  OK (Code)

23 - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc
           subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the
           packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
           size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)

  OK (No large documentation)

24 - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect
           the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in
           %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.

  OK

25 - MUST: Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel
           package.

  OK (No header files or static libraries)

26 - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel
           package.

  OK (No pkgconfig files)

27 - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
           (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so
           (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.

  OK (No library files)

28 - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require
           the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
           Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

  OK (No devel packages)

29 - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these
           should be removed in the spec.

  OK

30 - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
           %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly
           installed with desktop-file-install in the %install
           section. This is described in detail in the desktop files
           section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your
           packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you
           must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.

  OK

31 - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by
           other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first
           package to be installed should own the files or directories
           that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example,
           that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
           any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or
           man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own
           a file or directory that another package owns, then please
           present that at package review time.

  OK

32 - MUST: Release tag must contain %{?dist}.

  OK

33 - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as
           a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query
           upstream to include it.

  OK

34 - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec
           file should contain translations for supported Non-English
           languages, if available.

  OK

35 - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

  OK

36 - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on
           all supported architectures.

  OK (It's pure python code)

37 - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
           described. A package should not segfault instead of
           running, for example.

  Don't have access to a Trac instance at this time so I'll skip this one...

38 - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be
           sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement
           to determine sanity.
           REMINDER: Check for condrestart if a service is restarted
           by scriptlets.
           REMINDER: Verify that non-chkconfig/ldconfig commands have
           "|| :".

  OK (No scriptlets)

39 - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the
           base package using a fully versioned dependency.

  OK (No subpackages)

One note that I would make is I would add comment regarding the use of
"setup.py sdist" to create the tarball, otherwise this package is:

APPROVED

-- 
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 package-review mailing list