[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail

Sun Apr 8 13:25:53 UTC 2007

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: gotmail

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905

------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro  2007-04-08 09:25 EST -------
Thank you for your efforts, James, but there still are some problems:

The spec from comment #36 says release 4 but the last Changelog entry is for
release 3. This is again the same type of error as seen by comment #4. Please
also note that it would be wise for the changelog entry to reflect the actual
changes. Generic descriptions ("changes to spec for fedora extras") are
completely useless to someone who wishes to know if a specific release should be
used/updated etc. In my opinions explanations like "Modify makefile to preserve
timestamps", "Modify the list of authors in order to obtain a better man page"
would have been more appropiate.
rpmlint on the src.rpm from comment #36 still complains about permissions:
W: gotmail strange-permission gotmail.spec 0600
W: gotmail strange-permission gotmail-0.8.9.tar.bz2 0600
I wonder hou you missed these, since I assume that you do verify the src.rpm
using rpmlint before uploading it to sf.net. Maybe your version of rpmlint is
not uptodate ? Best option would be to use the one from FE, or even the one in
cvs because it has some small patches which have not been included in the
released version.

The time preserving problem is not fixed either, as you can see from a list of
the files included in the generated rpm:
[wolfy at wolfy64 result]$ rpm -qlv -p gotmail-0.8.9-4.noarch.rpm|grep Apr
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root    root            46409 Apr  8 15:42 /usr/bin/gotmail
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                0 Apr  8 15:42
/usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.8.9
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root            24580 Apr  8 05:00
/usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.8.9/ChangeLog
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root              346 Apr  8 05:00
/usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.8.9/NEWS
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root             1682 Apr  8 05:00
/usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.8.9/PRESSRELEASE
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root             3271 Apr  8 15:42
/usr/share/man/man1/gotmail.1.gz
[wolfy at wolfy64 result]$ date
Sun Apr  8 15:44:38 EEST 2007
One can notice that the application itself, as well as the man page have the
current time (15:42), not the one from packaging the tar.bz2 (5:00)

Given the fact that you seem to be the upstream maintainer, I strongly suggest
to decide what modifications to perform via the tar.bz2 (which would be seen by
anyone downloading the source from sf.net) and what you can/should do via the
spec file. It is indeed a big plus to have the spec inside the tar, but at least
until you have a correct spec, fiddling with the tar will confuse those users
who retrieve the file directly from sf.net and see newer files with the same
version. For instance the AUTHORS file could have remained as it was and adjust
it in %make (using sed or a perl one liner), just before doing the cat which
gives the final man. And anyway, if you want to have all authors listed in the
man page, why not just add the content of AUTHORS to the gotmail.man file
(before packing the tar) so that they can be seen by anyone who retrieves the
source tar.bz2 ? Or, as an alternative, why do you modify the man page, and not
just include both the man and the AUTHORS files just as they are (and are seen
by whoever chooses to grab the tar and not the rpm) ?
BTW, mind that Paul Cannon is listed twice in the modified man page because he
is present both in gotmail.man and in the long list of authors. And leaving
modesty apart, maybe your name should be listed too, as you seem to be the
current maintainer. Anyway, these two are just cosmetic, feel free to ignore.

WRT your question in comment #37, please see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored

-- 
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.