Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: hgsvn - A set of scripts to work locally on subversion checkouts
using mercurial
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430265
tibbs(a)math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |tibbs(a)math.uh.edu
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Summary|Review Request: hgsvn - A |Review Request: hgsvn - A
|set of scripts to work |set of scripts to work
|locally on subversion |locally on subversion
|checkouts using mercurial |checkouts using mercurial
Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2008-01-27 02:47 EST -------
The author sure didn't make it very easy to find the license version. I found
it properly specified only at the end of the __init__.py file.
Shouldn't this require mercurial and subversion in some fashion? It doesn't
really do much without them.
There's a test suite which can easily be run. Add build dependencies on
mercurial, subversion and python-nose and add a %check section containing:
%{__python} setup.py test
* source files match upstream:
a56f5cce308e455fc6ec913355c3d5dd82c1f87b68b62828962b371469db9376
hgsvn-0.1.5.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 (the mercurial advertisement is a bit annoying, but meh.)
* 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, missing hg and svn?
hgsvn = 0.1.5-1.fc9
=
/usr/bin/python
python(abi) = 2.5
X %check is not present, but it should be.
* 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 -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, or are watching someone who is.