[Bug 475755] Review Request: devtodo - Manage a hierarchical, prioritised list of outstanding tasks, jobs, or just reminders.

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475755


Patrick Monnerat <pm at datasphere.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #4 from Patrick Monnerat <pm at datasphere.ch>  2008-12-19 11:37:41 EDT ---
SRPM link above is lame. You probably meant
http://codewiz.org/pub/fedora/pkgs/devtodo-0.1.20-2.fc10.src.rpm

rpmlint devtodo.spec:
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint devtodo-0.1.20-2.fc10.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint devtodo-0.1.20-2.fc11.i386.rpm
devtodo.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/devtodo.sh
devtodo.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/devtodo.tcsh
devtodo.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.20-1 ['0.1.20-2.fc11',
'0.1.20-2']
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

--> Consider %config(noreplace) for %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d scripts. This will
allow customization and make rpmlint silent.
--> %changelog comment versioning still not OK !

%{buildroot}/etc/profile.d --> %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/profile.d  (3 times)

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1009624

_ Please comment your "buildfixes" patch.
_ Consider also using option -p when installing scripts to preserve their
mtime.

OK  package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK  specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK  source files match upstream:
 sha1: 003067a12139d712dbb3706069e0950a93ecaaf4  devtodo-0.1.20.tar.gz
 md5: 4a6241437cb56f237f850bcd2233c3c4  devtodo-0.1.20.tar.gz
OK  summary is OK.
OK  description is OK.
OK  dist tag is present.
OK  build root is OK.
OK  license field matches the actual license.
OK  license is open source-compatible.
OK  license text included in package.
OK  BuildRequires are proper.
OK  compiler flags are appropriate (unchanged).
OK  %clean is present.
--  The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines (changelog version)
OK  package builds in Koji (rawhide).
OK  package installs properly.
OK  debuginfo package looks complete.
--  rpmlint is not silent (see above).
OK  final provides and requires are sane:
 devtodo = 0.1.20-2.fc11
 devtodo(x86-32) = 0.1.20-2.fc11
  =
        libc.so.6()
 libgcc_s.so.1()
 libm.so.6  
 libncurses.so.5  
 libreadline.so.5  
 libstdc++.so.6()
 libtinfo.so.5
OK  %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I was able to run programs
from the command line and manage todo lists.
OK  no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK  owns the directories it creates.
OK  doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK  no duplicates in %files.
OK  file permissions are appropriate.
OK  code, not content.
OK  documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
OK  %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK  no headers.
OK  no pkgconfig files.
OK  no static libraries.
OK  no libtool .la files.

This is my first review !!! I hope I've seen everything and I'm not too severe
:-)

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