[Bug 173368] Review Request: planetplanet

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: planetplanet


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173368


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com              |kevin at tummy.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2006-02-05 16:11 EST -------
A review:

MUST items:

OK - No rpmlint output
OK - Package name.
OK - Spec file name matches.
OK - Package guidelines.
SEE #1 BELOW - License. (Python) (but see item #1 below)
OK - License field matches in spec.
OK - License included in files.
OK - Spec in american english.
SEE #2 BELOW - md5sum of source from upstream
OK - Compiles and builds on one arch at least.
OK - No forbidden buildrequires included
OK - Owns all directories it creates.
OK - No duplicate files in %files listing.
OK - Permissions on files correct.
OK - Clean section correct.
OK - Macros consistant.
OK - Code not content.
OK - Doesn't own any files/dirs that are already owned by other packages.

Items needing attention:

1. The package is licensed under the Python license, but the planet/htmltmpl.py
file appears to be under the GPL. Doesn't that mean the entire package has
to be released under the GPL?

2. Wanted to check the md5sum against upstream, but it's unclear how to
get the specific version you are using out of their arch/bzr setup.
Can you provide a bzr command to get that version?
Also, you might want to upgrade to the latest.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Package builds in mock.
OK - Binary rpms on all arches. (x86 and x86_64 at least, don't have ppc)
OK - Check for functionality. Seems to work fine here.

Additionally, since you are seeking a sponsor, you should consider
commenting on others packages to show your good understanding of the
package guidelines. You can find the list of packages awaiting review at:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=FE-NEW&hide_resolved=1

and the ones in review and seeking more comments at:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=FE-REVIEW&hide_resolved=1


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