[Bug 532590] Review Request: yaws - Web server for dynamic content written in Erlang

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532590


Simon Wesp <cassmodiah at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED




--- Comment #6 from Simon Wesp <cassmodiah at fedoraproject.org>  2009-11-21 09:10:44 EDT ---
It's not a test review for yourself, it's an informal one!


OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license

@Lubomir @Josephine: License must be LGPLv2+
<quote>
This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any
later version..
</quote>
Josephine: Licensetexts with the "any later version" phrase, always means to
add a + to the current license in the license-field in spec-file.



OK - MUST: Sources match the upstream source by MD5
2d6bd52af002f356d6738900a67550c5531a0b4a

@ Josephine: This is the sha1sum, but it is equal to the md5sum
6941ea52638805246973bf94fd6e9a52



CAN'T TEST, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T AN ACCESS TO KOJI - 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.

should be okay, because Lubomir already built it in koji, see top post




N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency


why N/A? The devel package meets this requirement. it's okay



OK - SHOULD: Functions as described.

You tested it? Me not, but i trust Lubomir that this pkg will work.


NOT OKAY, BECAUSE NOT ALL LICENSE TEXTS ARE IN A SEPERATE LICENSE FILE- SHOULD:
Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.

It's just a should item and the guideline says:
If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from
upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
I leave it up to Lubomir, but this isn't a blocker!

-- 
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.