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: perl-GSSAPI - Perl extension providing access to the GSSAPIv2 library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187809 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-07 19:33 EST ------- Package builds fine in mock (devel branch) and rpmlint is silent. Issues: BuildRequires: perl is not allowed. Why %{perl_vendorarch}/GSSAPI* instead of just %{perl_vendorarch}/GSSAPI ? Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and conforms to the Perl template. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. It's not included separately in the package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it. * source files match upstream: 91d5029a32302aa02414c9c8e3353cec IO-Interface-0.98.tar.gz 91d5029a32302aa02414c9c8e3353cec IO-Interface-0.98.tar.gz-srpm * package builds in mock. X BuildRequires: perl not permitted. * a shared library is present, but it is not in the library search path and there is no need to run ldconfig. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directory it creates. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. * does not own directories owned by other packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
