[Bug 175237] Review Request: bzr - bazaar-ng distributed revision control system

[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: bzr - bazaar-ng distributed revision control system


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175237


jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com              |jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us  2006-01-14 10:20 EST -------
Good:

      - MUST: rpmlint output:

E: bzr non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bzrlib/store/weave.py 0644
E: bzr non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bzrlib/revfile.py 0644
E: bzr non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bzrlib/selftest/test_weave.py 0644
E: bzr non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bzrlib/xml4.py 0644
E: bzr non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bzrlib/xml5.py 0644
E: bzr non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bzrlib/upgrade.py 0644
E: bzr non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bzrlib/xml.py
0644E: bzr non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bzrlib/weave.py 0644

which I think can be ignored

      - MUST: The package is named according to the PackageNamingGuidelines.
      - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
      - MUST: The package meets the PackagingGuidelines.
      - MUST: Bzr has a GPL license.
      - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
      - MUST: The source package does not have a copy of the license, so it
isn't in %doc
      - MUST: The spec file is written in American English.
      - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
      - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
      - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds on i386/devel.
      - MUST: A package must not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in
the exceptions section of PackagingGuidelines.
      - MUST: All other Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
      - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
      - MUST: The package does not contain shared libraries.
      - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable.
      - MUST: The package owns all of the directories that it cretes.
      - MUST: Package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
      - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. %files section includes a
%defattr(...) line.
      - MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
      - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the
macros section of PackagingGuidelines.
      - MUST: The package contains code.
      - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -docs subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
      - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
      - MUST: Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel package.
      - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package.
      - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a
-devel package.
      - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency.
      - MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives, these should
be removed in the spec.
      - MUST: Package does not include a GUI app.
      - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
      - SHOULD: Builds in mock on devel/i386, devel/x86_64, FC4/x86_64
      - SHOULD: No scriptlets are used.
      - SHOULD: There are no subpackages.

Would be nice:

      - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
      - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

Bad:

      - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.

Every command results in the following error:

[jeff at max1 ~]$ bzr help init
bzr: ERROR: No module named configobj.configobj
  command: '/usr/bin/bzr' 'help' 'init'
      pwd: u'/home/jeff'
    error: exceptions.ImportError
  at /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bzrlib/config.py line 62, in ?()
  see ~/.bzr.log for debug information

NEEDSWORK

-- 
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.