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

[Bug 176452] Review Request: oddjob - a D-BUS service which runs odd jobs on behalf of client applications



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: oddjob - a D-BUS service which runs odd jobs on behalf of client applications


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176452





------- Additional Comments From jspaleta gmail com  2006-01-15 18:53 EST -------
Formal Review Summary for 0.21-3:
No blockers according to the review guidelines.
But I haven't tested the intended functionality beyond checking that the service
script starts and stops correctly.  I'd like to test the provided sample, but
I'm sure I completely understand how to test it based on the text provided at
http://people.redhat.com/nalin/oddjob/.

I'll start a 48 hour clock on this approval. If someone is intereested in taking
the provided sample configuration in the docs for a spin and wants to report
back in the meantime please go ahead. 

Full Review:
- GOOD: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
all messages appear bogus
rpmlint oddjob-0.21-3.i386.rpm
E: oddjob executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/oddjobd
W: oddjob incoherent-init-script-name oddjobd
rpmlint oddjob-devel-0.21-3.i386.rpm
W: oddjob-devel no-documentation
rpmlint oddjob-libs-0.21-3.i386.rpm
(no output)

- GOOD: The package is named according to the PackageNamingGuidelines.
- GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
- GOOD: The package meets the PackagingGuidelines.
- GOOD: The package is licensed BSD 
- GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- GOOD: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
- GOOD: The spec file must be written in American English.
- GOOD: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable
to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora Extras
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW]
http://www.ioccc.org/).
- GOOD: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
105265e2cdf9f2370373ee5432a5b4cd  oddjob-0.21-1.tar.gz
- GOOD: The package must successfully builds on fedora-core-development i386 in mock
- GOOD: A package does not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in the
exceptions section of PackagingGuidelines.
- GOOD: All other Build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
- GOOD: No locale files. 
- GOOD: libs subpackage has correct post/postun scriplets
- GOOD: not designed to be relocatable, 
- GOOD: All the directories created in all subpackages are owned.
- GOOD: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
- GOOD: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
- GOOD: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- GOOD: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of PackagingGuidelines.
- GOOD: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described
in detail in the code vs. content section of PackagingGuidelines.
- GOOD: no Large documentation files. 
- GOOD: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
- GOOD: Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel package.
- GOOD: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package.
- GOOD: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
- GOOD: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
- GOOD: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
- GOOD: No GUI applications 
- GOOD: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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.


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