[Bug 427483] Review Request: publican-jboss - JBoss Theme

[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=427483

Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

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

--- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2010-11-01 20:49:32 EDT ---
Oh, OK.  It's generally best if you open your own bugs, especially since these
ancient ones seem to be overlooked by everyone except me.

Generally you should start your release with 1; releases less than 1 are
reserved for prerelease packages. I'm assuming that you're just doing that for
the purposes of the review; it's usually best to present the package as you
would have it imported.

The URL is not correct; at least, it only gets me to a list of fedorahosted
projects.

Is there any point to the docuemntation-devel-JBoss stuff?  As far as I can
tell, there was never a package with that name in Fedora.

As expected for a review ticket of this age, there are a few lines in the spec
which are not required for modern Fedora (BuildRoot:, first line of %install,
and for F13+, the entire %clean section).  I would suggest removing them unless
you intend to target EPEL{4,5} (which I don't believe is possible, since
publican there is hopelessly ancient).

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
  47c12c97198dc62defb0f0c5f9bbe80171ec3736a467180e8d010d99d758241c
   publican-jboss-2.3.tgz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
? final provides and requires:
 ? documentation-devel-JBoss = 2.3-0.fc15
   publican-jboss = 2.3-0.fc15
  =
   publican >= 2.0

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* 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.