[Bug 13] Review request: rpmfusion-package-config-smart - RPM Fusion configuration files for the Smart package manager

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13


David Timms <dtimms at iinet.net.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dtimms at iinet.net.au
             Blocks|2                           |3
         AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-          |dtimms at iinet.net.au
                   |review at rpmfusion.org        |




--- Comment #1 from David Timms <dtimms at iinet.net.au>  2008-08-08 16:35:01 ---
Taking review:
! needs work.
OK no problemo
?? can't say/don't understand.
=====
[??] rpmlint output:
rpmfusion-package-config-smart.i386: W: no-documentation
rpmfusion-package-config-smart.i386: E: no-binary
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings

1: including license like GPL's copying may be enough to hide it.
2: should this package be noarch, since it has no executable ?

[!] included source matches upstream: there is no upstream source from what I 
    can tell.
    If no one objects, I would suggest not compressing the config files. It
    will be easier to manage/qa any changes in the config files if they are
    simply committed into cvs as straight text files, and hence diffs can be
    more easily run.

[OK] package name follows the existing scheme used in fedora repo:
     fedora-package-config-smart
[OK] spec named %name.spec

[??] source tarball contains no prebuilt binaries/libraries.
     however, as suggested above, perhaps just have multiple text sources

[OK] files placed into FHS locations
[OK] changelog in standard format
[OK] correctly omits Packager, vendor, copyright, prereq 
    , includes license tag.
[OK] summary <80 chars, no ending period

[!]  sourceX is correct:
     does not exist. see previous comment regarding compressed config.

[??] buildroot differs slightly from third most preferred location.

[OK] %install correctly erases buildroot before build

[  ] mock build succeeds.
     not tested.
[  ] rpmdiff between default build and mock build shows only time
    {T} differences for folders.

[OK] description is column limited to <80 chars, no manual/doc info.
[OK] charset is ascii

[!]  docs not included at all. perhaps include "copying" ?

[OK] debuginfo not expected in noarch package.
[OK] no static libraries, rpath, self copies of already packaged libaries
[OK] no config, initscripts, desktop files.
[OK] variable style is used consistently
[OK] not multilingual
[OK] timestamps are kept
[OK] make is python based, so smp_flags not required.
[OK] no scriptlets, no conditional dependencies
[OK] is library code not content
[OK] provides backend for each of the backend subpackages seems to make sense.
[OK] dirs/files owned by main package, except the individual backend 
    files {whose directory is created by the main package}.
[OK] not a web app, shoudln't conflict with other packages.
[OK] python sitelib is correctly included at top of spec.
[OK] eggs are build
[OK] no files in %{_bindir} and %{_sbindir}.
[OK] %install setup.py install -O1 --skip-build. as requested for python
packages.
=====
[??] Provides: smart-config-rpmfusion. Is this a previous package that you
     are trying to supersee ? Or why is this done ?
     If there is a smart config package for any of the three parent repos, then
     perhaps this should provide smart-config-[oldrepo], so that the old smart
     config is removed ?

[??] license: GPL+ is an allowed value. Possibly need to include a a license
     file of some sort.

[!] Release is sane, but needs the %{?dist}

[??] %files: 
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/smart
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/smart/channels
     I think these directories shouldn't be owned by this package, but rather
     by the Requires: package.

[??] The config presented in the smart config files refers to URLs that don't
     exist. I assume these will get updated as rpmfusion nears public release ?

[??] package functions as described: wont work at the moment due to the above.

[??] Recently, I have recevied suggestions to use the 'checked' macros for 
     cp, rm, install etc, eg: %{__install} -D -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE1} 

Info: you might like to look at how the equivalent yum config for freshrpms
      does some of these things.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.