[Bug 230512] Review Request: viewvc- Browser interface for CVS and SVN version control repositories

Tue Mar 6 05:06:05 UTC 2007

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: viewvc-  Browser interface for CVS and SVN version control repositories

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230512

bjohnson at symetrix.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com  2007-03-06 00:05 EST -------
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Rpmlint output:
     E: viewvc non-standard-uid /var/spool/viewvc apache
     E: viewvc non-standard-gid /var/spool/viewvc apache
     E: viewvc non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/viewvc 0700

     The application requires these to run as a web application and create
     temporary files.  These files are also subject to containing confidential
     information.

     W: viewvc-selinux no-documentation

     There is no documentation for this package.
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the  Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 [x] 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 is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is written in American English.
 [x] Spec file for the package is legible.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     MD5SUM this package    : 3d44ad485d38bf9f61d8111661260b4a
     MD5SUM upstream package: 3d44ad485d38bf9f61d8111661260b4a
 [-] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on:
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
     Arches excluded:
     Why:
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [-] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: fedora-6/i386
 [-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
 [x] File based requires are sane.
 [x] Latest version is packaged.

=== Issues ===
1.

=== Final Notes ===
1. It is understood that inherent knowledge of selinux policy types is not
recommended, however, this will only be included until the base policy includes
the information for this package.
2. Packager must obsolete -selinux package when policy is included in base policy.
3. Please inquire about the selinux policy updates required for EL4/EL5 (ie.
does your current open bug cover these or do you need a separate bug?).

================
*** APPROVED ***
================

-- 
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.