[Bug 483026] Review Request: hatools - Improved shell scripting in High Availability environment

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483026


Jochen Schmitt <jochen at herr-schmitt.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |jochen at herr-schmitt.de
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |jochen at herr-schmitt.de
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #2 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen at herr-schmitt.de>  2009-01-29 11:22:55 EDT ---
Good:
+ Basename of the SPEC files matches with package name
+ Package contains the most current release
+ SPEC file is written in English
+ Could download source via spectool -g
+ Packaged tar ball matches with upstream
(md5sum: ba137a37f6725076c7d2c729cbccf4a5)
+ Package contains no patches
+ Package contains a license tag
+ Package contains a verbatin copy of the license text
+ Package contains proper BuildRoot specification
+ Consistently use of rpm macros
+ Package contains no patches
+ Package doesn't need any BRs or Reqs.
+ Package use parallel make
+ Buildroot will be cleaned at the beginning of %clean and %install
+ Local build works fine
+ Build honors $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
+ Koji build works fine
+ Debuginfo package contains source files
+ Local install works fine
+ Start of command without arguments doesn't crashed
+ Local uninstall works fine
+ Package doesn't have subpackages
+ Default files permission are ok.
+ Files have proper file permission
+ %files stanza doesn't have duplicated entries
+ All packaged files are owned by the package
+ No packaged file has a conflict with ohter packages
+ %doc stanza is small, so we don't need a separate subpackage
+ %changelog is in a proper format

Bad:
- License tag says GPL as license. It's necessary to specified the
version of the used GPL. A look on the source files says, that GPLv2+
may the right specification for the license tag.

TODO:
* I thing a blank line beetween the paragraph of the description
will incerease the readability of it.

-- 
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.