[Bug 193960] Review Request: perl-Net-LibIDN

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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-Net-LibIDN


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193960


tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2006-06-23 11:23 EST -------
Builds fine in mock (x86_64, development) and rpmlint is silent.

Note that BuildRequires: perl is not necessary; it's already in the buildroot by
default.

One odd thing about this package is that the documentation indicates that a copy
of the GPL should be in a "Copying" file, but one isn't included in the tarball.
 (Who can understand why upstream does the things they do?)  To avoid confusion,
you might want to run "perldoc -t perlgpl > Copying" at the end of %build and
then include the Copying file in %doc.

Your libidn >= 0.4.0 dependency is also redundant; rpm finds the libidn.so.11
dependency which will pull in libidn.  A search does show that libidn.so.11 was
present at least back to libidn 0.3.7, but even FC3 shipped with 0.5.6 so
there's no chance of having an old version.

None of these are blockers.  The first is a matter of taste and the latter two
would be good to fix but I'll leave it up to you.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
   0738e29652f5d9f11694b289229e79f8  Net-LibIDN-0.08.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged.
O BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is redundant)
* package builds in mock (x86_64, development).
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   LibIDN.so()(64bit)
   perl(Net::LibIDN) = 0.08
   perl-Net-LibIDN = 0.08-5.fc6
  =
   libidn >= 0.4.0
   libidn.so.11()(64bit)
   perl >= 0:5.006
   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
   perl(AutoLoader)
   perl(Carp)
   perl(DynaLoader)
   perl(Errno)
   perl(Exporter)
   perl(strict)
   perl(warnings)

* shared libraries are present, but internal to perl.
* 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:
   ok 21
   + exit 0
* 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.

APPROVED

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]