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-Gtk2-Sexy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200492 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-31 21:37 EST ------- I had to add BR: libxml2-devel in order to get this to build. Once that was done, rpmlint just has: W: perl-Gtk2-Sexy devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Gtk2/Sexy/Install/sexy-autogen.h which is normal for Perl modules. The debuginfo package is missing the source: cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/Sexy.c: No such file or directory cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/SexyIconEntry.c: No such file or directory cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/SexySpellEntry.c: No such file or directory cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/SexySpellEntry.xs: No such file or directory cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/SexyTooltip.c: No such file or directory cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/SexyTreeView.c: No such file or directory cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/SexyUrlLabel.c: No such file or directory but I'm pretty sure that's just rpm bustedness. You can fix it by adding one line to the end of %build: cp xs/* . I'm not really sure it's necessary, but it does result in a proper debuginfo package and shouldn't harm anything, even with short-circuit builds. (Something like this is needed for many Java packages as well.) It's pretty much pointless to run the test suite within mock, but I did install the built package locally and the examples seemed to run well enough. However, in order to run the examples I had to install perl-Gtk2. Is this package useful at all without perl-Gtk2 installed? I don't see any blockers except for the missing BR:; what do you think about the debuginfo fix and the perl-Gtk2 dependency? Review: * source files match upstream: 59433b6b2f2d72c5dfcc0d1dd0c5e7d7 Gtk2-Sexy-0.02.tar.gz * 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 not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. X BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). ? debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has only ignorable errors. * final provides and requires are sane: Sexy.so()(64bit) perl(Gtk2::Sexy) = 0.02 perl(Gtk2::Sexy::Install::Files) perl-Gtk2-Sexy = 0.02-2.fc6 = libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libsexy.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present but isn't possibly going to run in mock. * shared libraries are present (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. * 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. -- 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