[Bug 502358] Review Request: mojomojo - Catalyst & DBIx::Class powered Wiki

[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=502358

manuel wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #17 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> 2010-07-22 05:37:24 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM:
mojomojo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fulltext -> full text,
full-text, Fullerton
=> ignorable
binary RPM:
mojomojo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fulltext -> full text,
full-text, Fullerton
=> ignorable
mojomojo.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/mojomojo/uploads 0750L
mojomojo.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/mojomojo.conf 0640L
mojomojo.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/mojomojo/index 0750L
mojomojo.noarch: E: non-readable /var/lib/mojomojo/mojomojo.db 0640L
=> intended, security reasons
mojomojo-selinux.noarch: W: cross-directory-hard-link
/usr/share/selinux/strict/mojomojo.pp /usr/share/selinux/targeted/mojomojo.pp
=> ignorable, chances for /targeted and strict to reside on different devices
are close to nil. Not to mention that the content of this package should be
transferred to selinux-policy.
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: GPL+ or Artistic
 [x] 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 the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of source file: eab857f0e22824dfbc16afba63dc70ec3612c87a 
MojoMojo-1.01.tar.gz
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [!] Final provides and requires are sane.
I guess a bit of filtering is needed here, as we have, under requires:
perl(Catalyst)
perl(Catalyst) >= 5.8000
perl(Data::Page)
perl(Data::Page) >= 2.00
perl(DateTime)
perl(DateTime) >= 0.28
perl(File::MMagic)
perl(File::MMagic) >= 1.27
perl(HTML::Entities)
perl(HTML::Entities) >= 3.60
perl(HTML::Strip)
perl(HTML::Strip) >= 1.04
perl(MRO::Compat)
perl(MRO::Compat) >= 0.10
perl(Text::Context)
perl(Text::Context) >= 3.5
perl >= 0:5.008004
/usr/bin/perl


=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: devel, noarch
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on: devel, noarch
 [?] Package functions as described.
 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.
 [x] %check is present and the test passes.

=== OPTIONAL ITEMS ===
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).

=== Issues ===
 See above (comment 16 and the "Requires" section)

-- 
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.