[Bug 573741] Review Request: RBTools - Tools for interacting with ReviewBoard

[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=573741

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek at redhat.com> 2010-04-06 08:02:52 EDT ---
Summary:
python-setuptools must be added as runtime requires, as the post-review script
imports from pkg_resources.

The other review items look good to me and the package seems to be functioning
as expected.

Detailed review:
* MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint on the SRPM and the resulting noarch binary RPM:
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings

* MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
* MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK, the tarball name matches the package name

* MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
* MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
* MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
MIT license, license in spec matches the tarball -> OK

* MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for th
It does not, no licence text included -> OK

* MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. 
* MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK

* MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
OK - 1cdd4bba5365a8738cd26d5cba0c992f

* MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7] 
OK, see the link for the koji scratch build Stephen provided in Comment  #3

* MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
OK

* MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK

* MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
creat
OK

* MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK

* MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
OK

* MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK

* MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK, contains only upstream code + patches

* MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application.
OK

The other review checklist items are not applicable for this particular package
as it contains no header files, do libraries etc.

* SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
It would be nice to have one, but the --help output is enough to start using
post-review.

-- 
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.