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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-26 00:21 EST ------- Only one of the files (lib/OpenFrame/Argument/Blob.pm) seems to have a statement of the license. I don't think that's enough to suggest the license for the entire package. I wonder about the need for these: Requires: perl(File::Type) >= 0.01 Requires: perl(HTTP::Request) >= 0.01 Requires: perl(IO::Null) >= 0.01 The versions are so low that they seem to have been put in as placeholders. RPM should figure out all of these on its own. (It doesn't find HTTP::Request but it does find other modules, all provided by perl-libwww-perl.) Some issues from the test suite: t/02http_request....[OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response::OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response::dispatch] no response available at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Pipeline/Dispatch.pm line 74 ok t/98compile.........skipped all skipped: - do not have File::Find::Rule installed I'm not sure if the first is a mock artifact or a problem with the test suite. The second is fixed up with the obvious BR:. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. ? license field matches the actual license. ? license is open source-compatible. * source files match upstream: 6469544c6c83a0aa33676421cb09d1a5 OpenFrame-3.05.tar.gz 6469544c6c83a0aa33676421cb09d1a5 OpenFrame-3.05.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. ? final provides and requires are sane: perl(OpenFrame) perl(OpenFrame::Argument::Blob) perl(OpenFrame::Constants) perl(OpenFrame::Cookie) perl(OpenFrame::Cookies) perl(OpenFrame::Object) perl(OpenFrame::Request) perl(OpenFrame::Response) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::ContentLoader) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Request) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response) perl-OpenFrame = 3.05-1.fc6 - perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(CGI) perl(CGI::Cookie) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Spec) perl(File::Temp) perl(File::Type) perl(File::Type) >= 0.01 perl(FileHandle) perl(HTTP::Headers) perl(HTTP::Request) >= 0.01 perl(HTTP::Response) perl(HTTP::Status) perl(IO::Null) perl(IO::Null) >= 0.01 perl(OpenFrame) perl(OpenFrame::Argument::Blob) perl(OpenFrame::Cookie) perl(OpenFrame::Cookies) perl(OpenFrame::Object) perl(OpenFrame::Request) perl(OpenFrame::Response) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response) perl(Pipeline) perl(Pipeline) >= 2.00 perl(Pipeline::Production) perl(Pipeline::Segment) perl(base) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings::register) * 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 (after adding File::Find::Rule): All tests successful. Files=6, Tests=54, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.39 cusr + 0.16 csys = 0.55 CPU) * 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. * 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review