[Bug 439117] Review Request: preupgrade - Preresolves dependencies and prepares a system for an upgrade

[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: preupgrade - Preresolves dependencies and prepares a system for an upgrade


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439117


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-04-04 21:41 EST -------
Builds fine.  rpmlint says:
  preupgrade.src: W: strange-permission preupgrade.spec 0600
which is a little weird but isn't a blocker.  (If it were 666, that would be a
problem.)

Is there no URL where the source can be downloaded?  Where does the tarball come
from?

BuildRoot should be one of the values from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot or at minimum
should include %{release} in addition to what's there.

You can shorten BuildArchitectures: as BuildArch: if you like to save typing. 
(I only mention it because vim highlights it oddly; the 'itectures' is a
different color.)

You can remove the tests that ensure the buildroot isn't '/'; rpmbuild does that
for you.

I was under the impression that Red Hat-developed code was GPLv2 only.  Not
really my business as the License: tag matches the source code, but I figured
I'd ask.

I notice you don't use the dist tag.  Your choice, of course; I assume you know
how to deal with its absence.

? can't check that the sources match upstream.
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
X build root is not OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   config(preupgrade) = 0.9-1
   preupgrade = 0.9-1
  =
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/python
   config(preupgrade) = 0.9-1
   python >= 2.1
   python(abi) = 2.5
   rpm >= 0:4.1.1
   rpm-python
   usermode
   yum >= 3.2.8
   yum-metadata-parser

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
  I installed this on a rawhide box and it ran well enough, although it doesn't 
  really do much in that case.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

-- 
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.