[Bug 193712] Review Request: sos

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: sos


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193712





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-06-08 16:07 EST -------
OK, first rpmlint.  Just one complaint, which is a blocker:

Looks like there's a missing changelog entry for 1.4:
   W: sos incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3-3 1.4-1.fc8

Some other issues:

I'm prepared to accept that a real tarball will make it somewhere public at some
point.  Until then, could you include a couple of lines of comment indicating
how you check out the source that's in the tarball?

You need to make sure a copy of the license text is included in the package.

Of course there's the aforementioned python-devel dependency issue.

I'm not sure why you have the manual dependency on python.  rpm will sort that
out for you and you'll have an automatic dependency like "python(abi) = 2.5".

Really, these are pretty minor issues and should be easily fixed up.

Review:
? Can't check that source files match upstream.
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
X license text not included in package.
* latest version is being packaged (I suppose; it's an SVN checkout)
X BuildRequires are proper (python-devel is needed).
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
X rpmlint has a valid complaint.
X final provides and requires are sane:
   sos = 1.4-1.fc8
  =
   /usr/bin/env
 X python >= 0:2.3
   python(abi) = 2.5
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I installed it on a rawhide 
   machine and it seemed to run OK.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.


-- 
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.