Bug 428579 - Review Request: mkdst - Source repository to tarball release tool
Review Request: mkdst - Source repository to tarball release tool
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jason Tibbitts
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-01-13 14:30 EST by Warren Togami
Modified: 2008-02-19 14:09 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-02-19 14:09:50 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
tibbs: fedora‑review+
wtogami: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Warren Togami 2008-01-13 14:30:24 EST
Source repository and tarball release tool
Currently supports only bzr, but more VCS tools are planned.
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2008-01-13 15:28:55 EST
The only nitpick I can find is that the first line of %description isn't
grammatically a sentence.  But honestly, there's nothing worth complaining

* source files match upstream:
  (downloaded manually since there is no permanent location yet)
* 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 are sane:
   mkdst = 0.1-1.fc9
* %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 -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.