[Bug 453822] Review Request: netstiff - A powerful Web and FTP site update checker

[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: netstiff - A powerful Web and FTP site update checker


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453822


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-07-02 20:31 EST -------
There's very little to this package; I only have a couple of comments:

It's not strictly necessary to have an explicit dependency on ruby, because rpm
finds the /usr/lib/ruby dependency on its own.

Thee version you have is fine, but if you think that in the future your upstream
might release, say, version 0.1, and you don't want to have to use an epoch,
then you can use a version/release pair like 0-0.1.20080331.


* source files match upstream:
   ae279336487c71bad2f7cd1673ba09180e8f5784f2226375e95f5d546c58f69d  
   netstiff_20080331.orig.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none, as there's nothing to build).
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   netstiff = 20080331-1.fc10
  =
   /usr/bin/ruby
   ruby

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

APPROVED

-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.