[Bug 220926] Review Request: ingo - The Horde email filter manager

[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: ingo - The Horde email filter manager


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220926





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-12-29 22:12 EST -------
As with the Kronolith package, I needed to remove "tarballs/" from the
Source URL in order to download the source.

Also like the Turba package, this package has an incorrect license.
I believe this one should also be "Apache Software License v1".

It doesn't look like anyone has packaged up the Net_Sieve module, which limits
the utility of Ingo a bit.  

As usual for these Horde-based packages, there are a number of acceptable
rpmlint complaints:
E: ingo htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/ingo/scripts/.htaccess
E: ingo non-readable /etc/horde/ingo/backends.php 0660
  [six more]
E: ingo non-standard-dir-perm /etc/horde/ingo 0770
E: ingo non-standard-gid /etc/horde/ingo apache
  [seven more]
E: ingo non-standard-uid /etc/horde/ingo apache
  [seven more]
W: ingo conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/ingo/backends.php.dist
  [three more]

Review:
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has only ignoreable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   config(ingo) = 1.1.2-1.fc7
   ingo = 1.1.2-1.fc7
  =
   config(ingo) = 1.1.2-1.fc7
   horde >= 3
   php >= 4.3.0
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  Things seem OK after manual
  testing.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* locales are handle appropriately.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.