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-Crypt-RSA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183888 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-13 10:34 EST ------- I'm keeping a local repo with the dependency chain in it so that I can do reviews of these; I can't see anything that would keep Math::Pari from being approved so I'm just working on the assumption that it will eventually make its way into Extras. Issues: W: perl-Crypt-RSA file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man3/Crypt::RSA.3pm.gz This is due to a single accented 'e' in the POD. "iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8" should fix it up. Artistic license is included, but not GPL. Not a blocker, but upstream should probably be whacked. I'm not sure what to do with the two files in extradocs. One of them is referenced from the main manpage, but it also references an interoperability table which doesn't seem to be included. Otherwise it looks clean. 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: 3fd02d3d9e398e26848a0d49bd3b8ccd Crypt-RSA-1.57.tar.gz 3fd02d3d9e398e26848a0d49bd3b8ccd Crypt-RSA-1.57.tar.gz-srpm * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock. X rpmlint complains of non-utf8 documentation; see above. * final provides and requires are sane. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is present and all tests pass. * 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. -- 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
