[Bug 193889] Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193889





------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2006-07-24 13:52 EST -------
Honestly I'd actually copy the relevant text of that message into a file that
you include as %doc, and also include the URL of the original along with a bit
of explanation.  Someone with an installed package who wants to check the
license won't have access to the specfile.  I also don't think including a just
URL is sufficient, especially given how difficult sourceforge can be to reach
sometimes.

I personally would always use the dist tag because of the amount of work it
saves when maintaining identical packages across multiple distribution releases.
 But it's up to you.

I note that the final package has no requirement on Python.  I believe this is a
blocker.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   925d359f7db48c44ed0bc3044cebd3f0  ht2html-2.0.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X dist tag is present (not a blocker but you probably want to use it)
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
X license is open source-compatible.  Statement of license should be included as
%doc in the package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* noarch package; no debuginfo.
* rpmlint is silent.
X final provides and requires: missing python requirement.
   ht2html = 2.0-2
  =
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/env
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]