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: ingo - The Horde email filter manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220926 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-29 22:12 EST ------- As with the Kronolith package, I needed to remove "tarballs/" from the Source URL in order to download the source. Also like the Turba package, this package has an incorrect license. I believe this one should also be "Apache Software License v1". It doesn't look like anyone has packaged up the Net_Sieve module, which limits the utility of Ingo a bit. As usual for these Horde-based packages, there are a number of acceptable rpmlint complaints: E: ingo htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/ingo/scripts/.htaccess E: ingo non-readable /etc/horde/ingo/backends.php 0660 [six more] E: ingo non-standard-dir-perm /etc/horde/ingo 0770 E: ingo non-standard-gid /etc/horde/ingo apache [seven more] E: ingo non-standard-uid /etc/horde/ingo apache [seven more] W: ingo conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/ingo/backends.php.dist [three more] Review: * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has only ignoreable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: config(ingo) = 1.1.2-1.fc7 ingo = 1.1.2-1.fc7 = config(ingo) = 1.1.2-1.fc7 horde >= 3 php >= 4.3.0 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Things seem OK after manual testing. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * locales are handle appropriately. * 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. -- 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