[Bug 478291] Review Request: shtool - Portable shell tool

[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=478291


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

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




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-03-07 17:24:45 EDT ---
This builds fine and rpmlint is quiet.  However, a couple of comments:

Any reason for not running the included test suite?  It seems to work fine for
me with just
  %check
  make check

Does this really depend on Perl?  It seems that it will call Perl if it is
present in various cases, but that it doesn't actually depend on it.  rpm of
course doesn't know that and generates a /usr/bin/perl dependency anyway.


* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   1298a549416d12af239e9f4e787e6e6509210afb49d5cf28eb6ec4015046ae19  
   shtool-2.0.8.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).
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
? final provides and requires:
   shtool = 2.0.8-1.fc11
  =
   /bin/sh
?  /usr/bin/perl
?  perl >= 0:5.000
?  perl(strict)

X %check is not present, but a test suite exists and is easily callable.
* 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.

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.