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=487097 --- Comment #24 from Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-22 12:45:45 EDT --- This is looking good, with 4 issues that need attention (see below). As I understand things, as this review was opened by Ramez, he would be the initial owner as things stand. However it appears from comment #8 that he may be rather busy. I spoke with Stephen today and he's keen to get this into Fedora ASAP. Stephen: are you happy to maintain this? Ramez: are you still interested in maintaining this package within Fedora? Dan: are you interested in (co)maintaining it? So we may want to complete the "review" part of the review, have Stephen open a fresh review request, close this one as dup of the new, and "grandfather in" the work done here. Does that sound OK? = Issues needing attention = (i) installation issue on F-12 Stephen's F12 scratch build doesn't install on my laptop F-12 with updates enabled, but not updates-testing: Error: Missing Dependency: Django >= 1.1.1 is needed by package ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-1.fc12.noarch (/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-1.fc12.noarch) Error: Missing Dependency: python-djblets >= 0.5-0.1.rc1 is needed by package ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-1.fc12.noarch (/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-1.fc12.noarch) - latest version of Django in F-12 updates is Django-1.1-4.fc12 - python-djblets doesn't seem to actually be in fedora-updates for f12 yet Stephen: do you have this installed and working on a machine? (ii) Source0: URL is 404; need to be changed to: http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/%{name}/1.0/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz (see http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.0/ ; I notice there's a 1.1 directory as well FWIW) (iii) desktop files: the rb-site executable has a PyGTK GUI, so would normally require us to ship a .desktop file. However it can only be run when supplied a directory as a command-line argument, hence it wouldn't be meaningful to create a .desktop file for it. So this is OK, but please add a comment about the exception to the specfile. (iv) Does the package embed all of the requirements for the various SCM backends? (How well does this work with git?) (not easy to check this without a working install) = Notes = Filesystem layout: upstream have structured this code as a library and supporting tools that can be used to create (potentially) multiple local instances of ReviewBoard on a host, each stored in an arbitrary directory on the filesystem. All information for a specific instance (e.g. config, logs, tmp) goes below a particular directory for that instance (rather than e.g. /etc). I think it's acceptable for our package to reflect how upstream have structured this. = Reviewed items = - naming: name matches that of upstream tarball - specfile name is good - packaging guidelines: - N-V-R looks good - licensing "MIT" in spec matches that of README and of setup.py - spec is legible - spec follow python norms - changelog: OK - tags: OK - buildroot path uses 2nd recommendation in guidelines - buildroot is cleaned - %clean is present and correct - buildrequirements: successfully scratch-built in Koji - textual documentation present in built RPM below /usr/share/doc/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1 - compiler flags/debuginfo packages/devel packages: N/A - pkgconfig: N/A - shared libraries: N/A - packaging static libraries: N/A - dup of system libraries: doesn't seem to - rpath: N/A for pure python code - config files: see note about FHS above - initscripts: N/A - macros: OK - locale handling: no translations present in upstream source - scriptlets: N/A - code vs content: OK - file and dir ownership: OK - users and groups: doesn't have its own user - web app: uses /usr/lib/python for its data, which seems reasonable - /srv: OK - patches: none yet - epochs: OK - Python-specific guidelines: OK - license: OK - specfile is legible - MD5sum: OK - tarball in srpm: 16947ddda7ec9df41f243949ec83a950 ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1.tar.gz - tarball from upstream: 16947ddda7ec9df41f243949ec83a950 ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1.tar.gz - rest of the MUST items covered above - I've tested an earlier version of the rpm and it functions -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review