[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Package Review Stats for the week ending January 18th, 2009

Am Donnerstag, den 29.01.2009, 01:15 +0100 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > >       * Recently I updated some of the Xfce 4.6 packages. One of them
> > >         was approved without _any_ docs.
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477732
> > also all the desktop files were installed and listed in %files twice and
> > if the reviewer had tested the package he would have noticed that. Site
> > note: The reviewer has been made a sponsor 2 weeks later.
> s/he/she/ ;-)

Thanks, didn't know that.

> Not that it really matters, I'm just being pedantic. ;-)

Me too, epically on reviews. ;)

> >> >       * A font package was approved although it contained another font
> > 
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481501
> In this case the reviewer clearly said what needs to be fixed and the
> version which got imported was fixed, so it wasn't that bad. Maybe it would
> have made more sense to wait for a fixed version, but are there actually
> any issues with what was imported?

None that I know of. The package owner told me a different story on IRC
and I was under the impression that the reviewer did not spot the
For me it is ok to say "fix this before import", at least if the
packager is experienced enough. 

> > Do RH employes have sponsors too? A lot of the bad reviews are done by
> > RH people and a lot of bad specs come from RH folks.
> In the case of #459535, neither the original reviewer (before you rejected
> his review and rereviewed it) nor the people who commented before were RH
> employees. The reviewer in #481501 wasn't from Red Hat either. You can't
> just blame it all on RH 

I didn't do that, sorry if it sounded like this. I just say "a lot of
reviews". AFAICT RH people are known to do a lot of 3-word-revievs
("looks fine. Approved")

> > Somebody pointed me 
> > to:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433678
> > and I had a quick glance over it before Andreas added his comments:
> >       * no list of tests that have been run
> Bad.
> >       * SourceURL is missing
> >       * I can't even find the source because URL is wrong
> Very bad.
> >       * without the source you cannot check the License tag, md5, etc
> You could check the License by extracting the source from the SRPM. But it's
> pretty likely that wasn't done here.

Yes, the package is GPLv2+ but GPLv2.

> >       * docs not marked %doc
> RPM marks files in some directories as %doc automatically, AFAIK %{_docdir}
> is one of those.

Correct, but IMO there should always be a %doc line, at least for the
usual stuff like AUTHORS, COPYING, ChangeLog etc.

>         Kevin Kofler


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]