[Bug 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review tool

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Dec 22 17:45:49 UTC 2009


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487097





--- Comment #24 from Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat.com>  2009-12-22 12:45:45 EDT ---
This is looking good, with 4 issues that need attention (see below).

As I understand things, as this review was opened by Ramez, he would be the
initial owner as things stand.  However it appears from comment #8 that he may
be rather busy.

I spoke with Stephen today and he's keen to get this into Fedora ASAP.

Stephen: are you happy to maintain this?

Ramez: are you still interested in maintaining this package within Fedora?
Dan: are you interested in (co)maintaining it?

So we may want to complete the "review" part of the review, have Stephen open a
fresh review request, close this one as dup of the new, and "grandfather in"
the work done here.  Does that sound OK?

= Issues needing attention =
(i) installation issue on F-12
Stephen's F12 scratch build doesn't install on my laptop F-12 with updates
enabled, but not updates-testing:
Error: Missing Dependency: Django >= 1.1.1 is needed by package
ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-1.fc12.noarch (/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-1.fc12.noarch)
Error: Missing Dependency: python-djblets >= 0.5-0.1.rc1 is needed by package
ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-1.fc12.noarch (/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-1.fc12.noarch)
- latest version of Django in F-12 updates is Django-1.1-4.fc12
- python-djblets doesn't seem to actually be in fedora-updates for f12 yet

Stephen: do you have this installed and working on a machine?

(ii) Source0: URL is 404; need to be changed to:
http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/%{name}/1.0/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
(see http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.0/ ; I notice
there's a 1.1 directory as well FWIW)

(iii) desktop files: the rb-site executable has a PyGTK GUI, so would normally
require us to ship a .desktop file.  However it can only be run when supplied a
directory as a command-line argument, hence it wouldn't be meaningful to create
a .desktop file for it.  So this is OK, but please add a comment about the
exception to the specfile.

(iv) Does the package embed all of the requirements for the various SCM
backends?  (How well does this work with git?)  (not easy to check this without
a working install)

= Notes =
Filesystem layout: upstream have structured this code as a library and
supporting tools that can be used to create (potentially) multiple local
instances of ReviewBoard on a host, each stored in an arbitrary directory on
the filesystem.  All information for a specific instance (e.g. config, logs,
tmp) goes below a particular directory for that instance (rather than e.g.
/etc).  I think it's acceptable for our package to reflect how upstream have
structured this.

= Reviewed items =
- naming: name matches that of upstream tarball
- specfile name is good
- packaging guidelines:
  - N-V-R looks good
  - licensing "MIT" in spec matches that of README and of setup.py
  - spec is legible
  - spec follow python norms
  - changelog: OK
  - tags: OK
  - buildroot path uses 2nd recommendation in guidelines
  - buildroot is cleaned
  - %clean is present and correct
  - buildrequirements: successfully scratch-built in Koji
  - textual documentation present in built RPM below
/usr/share/doc/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1
  - compiler flags/debuginfo packages/devel packages: N/A
  - pkgconfig: N/A
  - shared libraries: N/A
  - packaging static libraries: N/A
  - dup of system libraries: doesn't seem to
  - rpath: N/A for pure python code
  - config files: see note about FHS above
  - initscripts: N/A
  - macros: OK
  - locale handling: no translations present in upstream source
  - scriptlets: N/A
  - code vs content: OK
  - file and dir ownership: OK
  - users and groups: doesn't have its own user
  - web app: uses /usr/lib/python for its data, which seems reasonable
  - /srv: OK
  - patches: none yet
  - epochs: OK
  - Python-specific guidelines: OK
- license: OK
- specfile is legible
- MD5sum: OK
  - tarball in srpm:
16947ddda7ec9df41f243949ec83a950  ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1.tar.gz
  - tarball from upstream:
16947ddda7ec9df41f243949ec83a950  ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1.tar.gz
- rest of the MUST items covered above
- I've tested an earlier version of the rpm and it functions

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list