Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: newt-perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226196 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-28 23:26 EST ------- This is just a simple perl module so this should be easy, but this package seems to be very old and has some interesting things in it. First off, I'm sure it predates any kind of naming guidelines, but it really should be called perl-Newt. rpmlint says: W: newt-perl incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.08-12 1.08-13 This just looks like a typo in the last changelog entry. E: newt-perl zero-length /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/auto/Newt/Newt.bs The usual Perl specfile template deletes these zero-length droppings with find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name '*.bs' -a -size 0 -exec rm -f {} ';' newt-devel is listed twice in BuildRequires. The license should be "GPL or Artistic", as it is released under the same terms as Perl. Nobody I asked could come up with any reason why brp-compress would have to be run manually in %install. This is an arch-specific package so generally you need to pass OPTIMIZE="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" in %build. However, if you don't it just uses the flags that Perl was built with, which are actually OK. The permissions come out a bit odd, with no owner write bit set. These are generally fixed up with a quick chmod. I also didn't see a reason for the "fix Newt.so perms" bit as those permissions are set just fine without any manuall setting. I'll attach a patch which fixes these issues. I've left the issue of the name along, as I'm not sure it's feasible to fix during the F7 test process. * source files match upstream: 35e78461b24ea7544d030fe71c82b6f633ea56f9bf0fa924ea61e1497863821f Newt-1.08.tar.gz X package should be named perl-Newt. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * build root is OK (Actually I'm assuming that the latest packaging committee output will be ratified on Thursday; I'll correct this review if it isn't.) X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (newt-devel is listed twice, but that doesn't really hurt) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks OK. X rpmlint has valid complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: newt-perl-1.08-13.x86_64.rpm Newt.so()(64bit) perl(Newt) = 1.8 newt-perl = 1.08-13 = libnewt.so.0.52()(64bit) libnewt.so.0.52(NEWT_0.52)(64bit) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(AutoLoader) perl(Carp) perl(DynaLoader) perl(Exporter) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is not present; test suite is present but interactive. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are a bit odd. * 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 static libraries. -- 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