[Bug 290081] Review Request: bodhi - A modular web-system that facilitates the process of publishing updates for a Fedora-based software distribution

[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: bodhi -  A modular web-system that facilitates the process of publishing updates for a Fedora-based software distribution


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=290081


tla at rasmil.dk changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From tla at rasmil.dk  2007-09-14 05:50 EST -------
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
? verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
    No upstream tarball to match, SRPM is upstream source.
? summary and description fine
    Maybe copy the main summary + description to the server package because
because no binary bodhi packages is build, so the description ends up 
    nowhere rpm -qi bodhi-server will not show much info.
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} is used
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
* package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* changelog format fine 
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag not used
* License used and not Copyright 
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
? BuildRequires are proper
  See earlier comment.
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* no libraries
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel sub-package necessary
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* no %makeinstall
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* no locale data
* no cp usage so no need to worry about -p
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
? file permissions fine
  See earlier comments.
* %defattrs present ( %defattr(-, root, root, -))
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
    $ rpm -q -R -p rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/bodhi-client-0.2.0-1.fc7.noarch.rpm 
    /usr/bin/python  
    rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
    rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1

    $ rpm -q -R -p rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/bodhi-server-0.2.0-1.fc7.noarch.rpm 
    /usr/bin/python  
    TurboGears  
    createrepo  
    intltool  
    mash  
    python(abi) = 2.5
    python-TurboMail  
    rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
    rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
    yum-utils  

    $ rpm -q --provides -p rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/bodhi-client-0.2.0-1.fc7.noarch.rpm 
    bodhi-client = 0.2.0-1.fc7
    
    $ rpm -q --provides -p rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/bodhi-server-0.2.0-1.fc7.noarch.rpm 
    bodhi-server = 0.2.0-1.fc7

* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
 - see previous bug comments

SHOULD:
x package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
? package should build in mock
 - I haven't tried, but I don't think it'll be a problem
 

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.