[Bug 229910] Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers.

[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: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229910


jwilson at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163779
              nThis|                            |
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com  2007-03-15 10:08 EST -------
> gee, wonder what spec file I was looking at. ;-)

I have absolutely no idea. :D

Here's the results of a full pass over the spec and resulting packages:

* source files match upstream: n/a, its an svn checkout

* package meets naming and versioning guidelines
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently
  - only consistency issue I see is 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' in one place, but
'rm -rf "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"' in another, which is inconsequential, but you get
extra style points if they're made to match. :)

* dist tag is present
* build root is acceptable
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* license field matches the actual license: GPL
* license is open source-compatible: GPL License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged: no release version yet, acceptable use of
svn checkout
* BuildRequires are proper
* compiler flags are appropriate: n/a, its perl noarch stuff
* %clean is present
* package builds in mock (F7/x86_64)
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete: n/a, its noarch
* rpmlint is silent:
  - only a W: for conmux-client containing no docs. You *could* add the main
README to the conmux-client sub-package if desired (could be useful in the case
where a system only has the client), but its not a requirement.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  conmux provides:
  ----------------
  config(conmux) = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
  conmux = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6

  conmux requires:
  ----------------
  config(conmux) = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
  conmux-client = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
  logrotate  
  perl  
  perl(Conmux)  
  perl(Getopt::Long)  
  perl(IO::Multiplex)  
  perl(IO::Socket)  
  perl(IPC::Open3)  
  perl(Net::Domain)  
  perl(Symbol)  
  perl(URI::Escape)  
  perl(base)  
  perl(lib)  
  perl(strict)

  conmux-client provides:
  -----------------------
  config(conmux-client) = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
  conmux-common = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
  perl(Conmux)  
  perl(Conmux::Registry)  
  conmux-client = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6

  conmux-client requires:
  -----------------------
  /usr/bin/perl  
  config(conmux-client) = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
  perl(Conmux)  
  perl(Getopt::Long)  
  perl(IO::Socket)  
  perl(POSIX)  
  perl(URI::Escape)

  Looks sane enough to me.

* %check is present and all tests pass: n/a
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths
* owns the directories it creates
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't
* no duplicates in %files
* file permissions are appropriate
* scriptlets are appropriate
* code, not content
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers
* no pkgconfig files
* no libtool .la droppings
* not a GUI app

Only the two minor (non-blocking) issues I raised above, so this package is
APPROVED, and I'll sponsor you. Next up, you need to create an account in the
Fedora Account System and jump through a few hoops to get to the point where you
can check the package in to be built. Basically, continue from here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-a89c07b5b8abe7748b6b39f0f89768d595234907

-- 
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.