MainInclusionPython-Boto

Differences between revisions 9 and 11 (spanning 2 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 9 as of 2007-02-08 11:54:09 →
Size: 2044
Editor: chiark
Comment: say to edit it
← Revision 11 as of 2007-02-08 12:04:23 → ⇥
Size: 2507
Editor: chiark
Comment: statements to questions
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 3: Line 3:
'''Note''': when writing a report this template should be vigorously edited; as a rule of thumb, every individual point should be replaced with a description of the actual situation in the package in question. The purpose of the report is to convey information to the reviewer, so there is no problem with nonstandard bullet items. '''Note''': when writing a report this template should be vigorously edited; as a rule of thumb, every individual point should be replaced with a description of the actual situation in the package in question. The purpose of the report is to convey information to the reviewer, so there is no problem with varying the text in the bullet items, or with adding additional information.
Line 5: Line 5:
Please be informative, and in particular be thorough in investigating and explaining any weaknesses and problems with the package. The purpose of the report is to show to the reviewer that you have done a thorough investigation, and to give the reviewer information for their decision. Please be informative, and in particular be thorough in investigating and explaining any weaknesses and problems with the package. The purpose of the report is to show to the reviewer that the package has been properly investigated, and to give the reviewer the information from that investigation, for their decision.
Line 14: Line 14:
  * No [http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=PRODUCT_NAME CVE entries].
  * No [http://secunia.com/search/?search=PRODUCT_NAME Secunia history].
  * No binaries running as root or suid/sgid.
  * Does not open any port.
  * Source code review:		   * [http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=PRODUCT_NAME CVE entries]: ...
  * [http://secunia.com/search/?search=PRODUCT_NAME Secunia history]: ...
  * Any binaries running as root or suid/sgid ? Any daemons ?
  * Network activity: does it open any port ? Does it handle incoming network data ?
  * Any source code review performed ? (The reviewer will do a quick and shallow check.)
Line 20: Line 20:
  * Package works out of the box without configuration.
  * Package does not ask any debconf questions higher than priority 'medium'.
  * No showstopper [http://bugs.debian.org/src:SOURCE_PACKAGE_NAME Debian bugs].
  * Good [http://packages.qa.debian.org/S/SOURCE_PACKAGE_NAME.html maintenance in Debian].
  * Active [http:// upstream].
  * No critical bugs in [http:// upstream bug tracker]
  * Does not deal with exotic hardware which we cannot support.		   * In what situations does the package not work out of the box without configuration ?
  * Does the package does ask any debconf questions higher than priority 'medium' ?
  * [http://bugs.debian.org/src:SOURCE_PACKAGE_NAME Debian bugs]: (mention any that are particularly relevant, and any showstoppers)
  * [http://packages.qa.debian.org/S/SOURCE_PACKAGE_NAME.html Maintenance in Debian] is frenetic/vigorous/calm/dead ?
  * [http:// Upstream] is frenetic/vigorous/calm/dead ?
  * [http:// Upstream bug tracker]: (mention any particularly relevant or critical)
  * Hardware: Does this package deal with hardware and if so how exotic is it ?
Line 28: Line 28:
  * Meets the [http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ FHS], [http://www.de.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ Debian Policy]
  * Meets [http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html Debian library packaging guide] standards.
  * Standard debhelper/cdbs/dbs packaging, standard patch system.		   * [http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ FHS], [http://www.de.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ Debian Policy] compliance ?
  * [http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html Debian library packaging guide] standards compliance ?
  * Packaging system (debhelper/cdbs/dbs) ? Patch system ? Any packaging oddities ?
Line 32: Line 32:
  * All in main.   * ...
 * Are these all in main ?

Main Inclusion Report for sourcepackage

Note: when writing a report this template should be vigorously edited; as a rule of thumb, every individual point should be replaced with a description of the actual situation in the package in question. The purpose of the report is to convey information to the reviewer, so there is no problem with varying the text in the bullet items, or with adding additional information.

Please be informative, and in particular be thorough in investigating and explaining any weaknesses and problems with the package. The purpose of the report is to show to the reviewer that the package has been properly investigated, and to give the reviewer the information from that investigation, for their decision.

Requirements

  1. Availability: http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/s/sourcepackage, available for all supported architectures

  2. Rationale:

    • Build dependency of ...

  3. Security:

  4. Quality assurance:

    • In what situations does the package not work out of the box without configuration ?
    • Does the package does ask any debconf questions higher than priority 'medium' ?

    • [http://bugs.debian.org/src:SOURCE_PACKAGE_NAME Debian bugs]: (mention any that are particularly relevant, and any showstoppers)

    • [http://packages.qa.debian.org/S/SOURCE_PACKAGE_NAME.html Maintenance in Debian] is frenetic/vigorous/calm/dead ?

    • [http:// Upstream] is frenetic/vigorous/calm/dead ?

    • [http:// Upstream bug tracker]: (mention any particularly relevant or critical)

    • Hardware: Does this package deal with hardware and if so how exotic is it ?

  5. Standards compliance:

  6. Dependencies:

    • ...
    • Are these all in main ?

Reviewers

MainInclusionPython-Boto (last edited 2009-09-22 15:19:28 by d14-69-66-169)