Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 180319
Summary: | Review Request: svnmailer - Tool to post subversion repository commit information | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Michael Fleming <mfleming+rpm> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | John Mahowald <jpmahowald> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-05-08 01:42:09 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Michael Fleming
2006-02-07 08:58:52 UTC
Random first comments: * Delete the python_sitearch definition, as it's not used. * Since this is an original submission, please use a template created by fedora-newrpmspec and follow that template's style * Use "BuildArch: noarch" (since this has no arch-dependent file) New source RPM up at http://www.enlartenment.com/extras/svnmailer-1.0.6-2.src.rpm (Old spec replaced with newer shinier model, same place as before) - BuildArch: noarch added - Superflous sitearch definition removed - The inital spec /was/ based off an older FE python template :-P - I've tried to undo whatever damage my local revisions have done (I've packaged it locally before..) * I would still prefer a more strict following of the spec template. Use the new template and fill it with the older information: it would really make it more readable. * Change the license to "Apache Software License" so rpmlint likes it. * Does it really need subversion as a Buildreq? Suggestions (non-binding!): * You may consider separating the documentation into a subpackage. It's large and it probably won't be useful to most of the users. * You may also consider running the test suite provided upstream automatically. (In reply to comment #3) New SRPM: http://www.enlartenment.com/extras/svnmailer-1.0.6-2.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.enlartenment.com/extras/svnmailer.spec > * I would still prefer a more strict following of the spec template. Use the new > template and fill it with the older information: it would really make it more > readable. Done, hope it's more sensible and legible. > * Change the license to "Apache Software License" so rpmlint likes it. Done. How on earth did I miss that before :-P > * Does it really need subversion as a Buildreq? Interestingly, yes - as it likes the subversion python bindings there during builds (and FC4 has them in the base package...). I've built it before without it and the results are quite erm, *interesting* :-). > Suggestions (non-binding!): > * You may consider separating the documentation into a subpackage. It's large > and it probably won't be useful to most of the users. Done (svnmailer-doc - suggestions on a better subpackage convention welcomed) > * You may also consider running the test suite provided upstream automatically. > Not a bad idea for folks who want to extend or otherwise hack on it, but I'd like to nail the basic package first. TODO. Spec Name or Url: http://www.enlartenment.com/extras/svnmailer.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.enlartenment.com/extras/svnmailer-1.0.7-1.src.rpm Upgrade to new upstream version (may as well keep it current eh? :-)) Ping - anyone interested in this still? I've rebuilt my copy for FC5, seems to work OK. The documentation may actually be of some use, as it's needed to generate a config file. But it does make sense to split it off. You may want to remove an annoying extra doc folder by doing in the %files doc section something like %doc docs/* But that's optional. Also a good idea would be a version bump to 1.0.8. For now: - rpmlint checks return clean - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (Apache Software License) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on FC5 (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED Imported and a build request on the devel branch queued |