[Bug 226800] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs

[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: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226800


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841              |
              nThis|                            |
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-10-11 01:01 EST -------
I finally found time to get back to this.  rpmlint is indeed down to:
   emacs-bbdb-el.noarch: W: no-documentation
which is fine.

Looking through the source, a good portion of this is actually GPL+, but I'm no
licensing expert so I can't really say if you need to mention that in your
License: tag.  I'm going to make the assumption that the package as a whole is
GPLv2+.

There are a few bits in here that aren't in the emacs guidelines, such as the
handling of emacs packages without pkgconfig support.  Should those make it into
the guidelines?  It looks like the emacs in F7 doesn't have pkgconfig support,
so the guidelines seem to be missing support for, basically, all of the releases.

Honestly, though, I see nothing wrong with this package.

* source files match upstream:
   3fb1316e2ed74d47ca61187fada550e58797467bd9e8ad67343ed16da769f916  
   bbdb-2.35.tar.gz
* 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.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  emacs-bbdb-2.35-8.fc8.noarch.rpm
   emacs-bbdb = 2.35-8.fc8
  =
   /bin/sh
   emacs(bin) >= 22.1

  emacs-bbdb-el-2.35-8.fc8.noarch.rpm
   emacs-bbdb-el = 2.35-8.fc8
  =
   emacs-bbdb = 2.35-8.fc8

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I can't remember enough about 
   emacs to be able to test this package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (info file registration)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

APPROVED

Since Jonathan's submitting this, I've removed FE-NEEDSPONSOR and I suppose it's
ready to go.  Do let me know if there's still a sponsorship issue.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.