[Bug 607876] Review Request: perl-Net-IMAP-Simple - Simple IMAP account handling

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607876

Mark Chappell <tremble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |tremble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |tremble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Mark Chappell <tremble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-25 07:24:43 EDT ---
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
   [x] Versioned MODULE_COMPAT_ Requires 
   [x] Non-Versioned CPAN URL tag 
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: epel-5-i386 in mock
 [!] Rpmlint output:

perl-Net-IMAP-Simple.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Perl extension for
simple IMAP account handling, mostly compatible with Net::POP3.
perl-Net-IMAP-Simple.src: E: description-line-too-long Perl extension for
simple IMAP account handling, mostly compatible with Net::POP3.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
     Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. 
     License type: GPL+ or Artistic
 [-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SRPM : bafc6db379391051cfd311c1430234f9
     Downloaded : bafc6db379391051cfd311c1430234f9
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2271908
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2271908
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.
 [!] %check is present and the tests pass if appropriate

error starting imap server: No such file or directoryBase class package
"Class::Accessor" is empty.


=== Comments ===

Description line is 83 characters and should probably have a line break before
72.

Adding BuildRequires perl(Regexp::Common) and perl(Class::Accessor) appears to
be required for the tests.

Might possibly be covered by 

#  Tests which require network or display access should be disabled for the
buildsystem, but with a method provided for local builds 

however there's no disabling or localbuild provision in the spec.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


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