owners owners.list,1.459,1.460

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Am Sonntag, den 25.12.2005, 01:13 -0500 schrieb Warren Togami:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 24.12.2005, 20:10 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> >> Huh? What did you do there? Please explain all these changes to
> >> owners.list.  It looks to me like damage which must be repaired.
> > 
> > That was repaired soon after the wrong commit afaics:
> > http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/owners/owners.list?root=extras&r1=1.460&r2=1.461
> 
> I realized that I made a mistake after approving luya too early. 
[...]
> This mail was mostly me thinking to myself out loud.  Will think about 
> solutions later...

I'd like to add one thing to your thinking -- some of his reviews simply
had a 
----
Congragulations, your src.rpm has succesfully passed the test including
rpmlint
with built rpm and mock.

The spec file fully complies with Packaging Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines.

It is the honor to get [...] package status as FE-ACCEPTED
----
or similar statements. Some other people do it like this, too. I would
feel much more comfortable if we would have a statement like the
following in the Review Guidelines:

"The Reviewer in the bugreport has to explicit list all the important
things he checked when approving a package."  

For example at least something like the following should be posted when
approving a package:
----
* rpmlint is happy
* builds in mock (FC-4 and rawhide)
* clean installation and removal
* spec looks good
* source matches upstream

APPROVED
----
or (in an ideal world):
----
- rpmlint checks return:

W: [....] no-documentation
Safe to ignore.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (LGPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- 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
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
- devel package ok
- no .la files
- post/postun ldconfig ok
- devel requires base package n-v-r 

APPROVED
----

(both examples taken from other reviews)

Comments?

CU
thl
-- 
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info>