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: repoman - Tool for configuring yum(8) settings and repositories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237170 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-04-23 00:08 EST ------- Hey David. Here's a review. It looks like you also need a sponsor? OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License(GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: aba4be5ea7da8cb0f751e1400d509acf repoman-0.7.tar.gz aba4be5ea7da8cb0f751e1400d509acf repoman-0.7.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install See below - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. The source url doesn't seem quite right http://www.boston.burdell.org/repoman/src/repoman-0.7.tar.gz works. (ie, it needs a /src/ in there) 2. rpmlint says: a) W: repoman no-dependency-on usermode Should "Requires: usermode" since you have a link to consolehelper. b) W: repoman incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7 0.7-1.fc7 Should have the Release on the versions in the changelog... ie, 0.7-1 c) W: repoman conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/repoman W: repoman conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/console.apps/repoman Are users ever likely to modify those files? Should they be noreplace? 2. You shouldn't need to require desktop-file-utils anymore, also you might use the standardized scriptlet for updating the mime-type key. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-de6770dd9867fcd085a73a4700f6bcd0d10294ef 3. You should use desktop-file-install to install the .desktop file: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755 4. Is there a reason for the (8) after yum in the summary and description? I find it distracting, and many people won't know what it means. Finally two items that are by no means blockers, but I thought I would mention: - Perhaps you could talk with the yum-presto maintainer and see if it would be possible/easy to add support for deltarpm repos when they appear? - I see that this application doesn't have an icon. Perhaps you could ask for someone on the art group to whip one up? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/DesignService -- 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