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: bodhi - A modular web-system that facilitates the process of publishing updates for a Fedora-based software distribution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=290081 tla@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tla@xxxxxxxxx 2007-09-14 05:50 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} ? verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) No upstream tarball to match, SRPM is upstream source. ? summary and description fine Maybe copy the main summary + description to the server package because because no binary bodhi packages is build, so the description ends up nowhere rpm -qi bodhi-server will not show much info. * correct buildroot * %{?dist} is used X license text included in package and marked with %doc * package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * changelog format fine * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * License used and not Copyright * Summary tag does not end in a period * specfile is legible * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ? BuildRequires are proper See earlier comment. * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel sub-package necessary * macros used appropriately and consistently * no %makeinstall * install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} * no locale data * no cp usage so no need to worry about -p * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates ? file permissions fine See earlier comments. * %defattrs present ( %defattr(-, root, root, -)) * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs $ rpm -q -R -p rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/bodhi-client-0.2.0-1.fc7.noarch.rpm /usr/bin/python rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 $ rpm -q -R -p rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/bodhi-server-0.2.0-1.fc7.noarch.rpm /usr/bin/python TurboGears createrepo intltool mash python(abi) = 2.5 python-TurboMail rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 yum-utils $ rpm -q --provides -p rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/bodhi-client-0.2.0-1.fc7.noarch.rpm bodhi-client = 0.2.0-1.fc7 $ rpm -q --provides -p rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/bodhi-server-0.2.0-1.fc7.noarch.rpm bodhi-server = 0.2.0-1.fc7 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs - see previous bug comments SHOULD: x package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 ? package should build in mock - I haven't tried, but I don't think it'll be a problem -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review