[Bug 544873] Review Request: gitweb-caching - Gitweb w/ simple file caching

[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=544873


Jon Stanley <jonstanley at gmail.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #4 from Jon Stanley <jonstanley at gmail.com>  2009-12-27 18:28:56 EDT ---
One more minor nitpicky thing I found doing the review - you need to include
the COPYING file as %doc in the package. Provided that you do that before you
import, this package is APPROVED.

Find me on IRC and I'll get you sponsored and walk you through the next steps.

OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License
OK - License field in spec matches
NO - License file included in package
YES - Spec in American English
YES - Spec is legible.
YES - Sources match upstream md5sum:
$ sha1sum --quiet -c ../sha1sums.txt 
$

Note that the tarball in the package is generated via a gitweb snapshot as
mentioned in the comments
I've verified that the sha1sum of every file matches the upstream git repo

N/A - Package needs ExcludeArch
YES - BuildRequires correct
N/A - Spec handles locales/find_lang
N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
YES - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
YES - Package has a correct %clean section.
YES - Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
YES - Package is code or permissible content.
N/A - Doc subpackage needed/used.
YES - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

N/A - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
N/A - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
N/A - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
N/A - .so files in -devel subpackage.
N/A - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
N/A - .la files are removed.

N/A - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file

YES - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
YES - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
YES - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
YES - Package owns all the directories it creates.
YES - No rpmlint output.
YES - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

YES - Should build in mock.
YES - Should build on all supported archs
YES - Should function as described.
YES - Should have sane scriptlets.
N/A - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
YES - Should have dist tag
YES - Should package latest version
N/A - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)

Issues:

1.  Include the license file (COPYING) in the package as %doc

-- 
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.