[Bug 515053] Review Request: sugar-getiabooks - Internet Archive Books receiver for Sugar

[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=515053





--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-11-03 10:25:50 EDT ---
Hmm, it's been longer than I thought since I looked at this.

Builds fine; rpmlint just says 
  sugar-getiabooks.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
which is OK; I'm not sure why rpmlint still complains about this as we don't
particularly care what goes in group anyway.

The NEWS file seems to be present twice in the final package.

Nothing seems to own /usr/share/sugar/activities.  (Well, etoys owns it, but
that's not in the dependency chain.)  I think this is probably a bug in sugar,
but absent that it's a bug in the guidelines and this package should own
%{sugaractivitydir}.  I've inquired on the fedora-packaging list.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   fa25987241db043235b132c2c12aba56b1865947e35180990ea32c431c326fa4
   GetIABooks-3.tar.bz2
* 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 (though it's no longer required at all).
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   sugar-getiabooks = 3-1.fc12
  =
   /usr/bin/env
   sugar
   (python is pulled in indirectly via sugar)
? nothing seems to own %{sugaractivitydir}.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
X NEWS seems to be duplicated.
* 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.

-- 
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.