[Bug 515360] Review Request: pipestat - anonymous pipe information

[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=515360


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-08-04 23:09:12 EDT ---
Builds fine and rpmlint is silent.

The only statement of the GPL version in use is in setup.py; the source file
just says
  # This software may be freely redistributed under the terms of the GNU
  # general public license.
which isn't all that specific.  setup.py is sufficient for us to establish
intent, even though it contradicts what's on the upstream web site.  It would
probably be a good idea to contact upstream and ask them to more clearly and
consistently state the code license, and to follow the instructions in the "How
to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" section of the GPL for indicating
GPL version in individual pieces of code.

I installed this and it seems to work, although there's no documentation at all
so I didn't do anything other than run it in a pipe.

The %description promises multiple scripts but I found only one.

None of these issues are significant enough to hold up this review, but it
would be nice to get the license stuff cleaned up before the code base grows
much more.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:                   
    818856108f0cb4799dc3baad0f841fdc20bc80dcddc902ffbf932085b4d19dc0
    pipestat-0.2.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 (besides promising more than one script).
* 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.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   pipestat = 0.2-1.fc12
  =
   /usr/bin/python
   python(abi) = 2.6

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

APPROVED

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.