[Bug 436568] Review Request: Supybot - Cross-platform IRC bot written in Python

[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: Supybot - Cross-platform IRC bot written in Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436568


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2008-05-24 01:00 EST -------
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
See below - License
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:
72f8f28f1d847b9070be1bc5f8b002a4  Supybot-0.83.3.tar.bz2
72f8f28f1d847b9070be1bc5f8b002a4  Supybot-0.83.3.tar.bz2.orig
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 has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install

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:

Some suggestions (non blocker):

1. You might want to add a:

Provides: Supybot = %{version}-%{release}

In case someone tries to install it via the upstream name.

2. You might comment that the patch simply removes the Google plugin
in the spec file.

3. On dependencies, it's really up to you, but some options:

- Just require all the needed packages. How much does that really pull
in? it doesn't look like it would be that much. Network and disk is cheap
these days.

- Add a README.Fedora file that explains that you can optionally install
package X for plugin Y and it will be detected at runtime.

- Split out some of the plugins that have additional requirements.
This is less than ideal, IMHO. They are all small programs and the
maint and overhead isn't worth it really.

All those are really non blockers and up to you to decide before import. 
Let me know if you want me to look over any final changes before import. 

Otherwise this package looks great and is APPROVED.
Thanks for assisting here Douglass!

-- 
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.