Package Review Stats for the week ending January 18th, 2009

[Kevin Kofler]

Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >       * Recently I updated some of the Xfce 4.6 packages. One of them
> >         was approved without _any_ docs.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477732
> also all the desktop files were installed and listed in %files twice and
> if the reviewer had tested the package he would have noticed that. Site
> note: The reviewer has been made a sponsor 2 weeks later.

s/he/she/ ;-)
Not that it really matters, I'm just being pedantic. ;-)

As for the complaint, no docs are certainly not ideal, but it's not what is
going to break the distribution either... But yes, reviewers should catch
this.

>> >       * A package was approved with more then 19 missing deps on
>> >         binaries.
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459535

That one sounds like a valid complaint.

>> >       * A font package was approved although it contained another font
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481501

In this case the reviewer clearly said what needs to be fixed and the
version which got imported was fixed, so it wasn't that bad. Maybe it would
have made more sense to wait for a fixed version, but are there actually
any issues with what was imported?

> Do RH employes have sponsors too? A lot of the bad reviews are done by
> RH people and a lot of bad specs come from RH folks.

In the case of #459535, neither the original reviewer (before you rejected
his review and rereviewed it) nor the people who commented before were RH
employees. The reviewer in #481501 wasn't from Red Hat either. You can't
just blame it all on RH employees.

> Somebody pointed me 
> to:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433678
> and I had a quick glance over it before Andreas added his comments:
>       * no list of tests that have been run

Bad.

>       * SourceURL is missing
>       * I can't even find the source because URL is wrong

Very bad.

>       * without the source you cannot check the License tag, md5, etc

You could check the License by extracting the source from the SRPM. But it's
pretty likely that wasn't done here.

>       * docs not marked %doc

RPM marks files in some directories as %doc automatically, AFAIK %{_docdir}
is one of those.

        Kevin Kofler