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-SGML-Parser-OpenSP - Perl interface to the OpenSP SGML and XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237883 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-26 19:41 EST ------- There's a samples/ directory. Why not include it in %doc? For the purposes of this review, I added it. Also... perl is referred to as %{__perl}, while, e.g., rm isn't %{__rm}. Doesn't it fit better with the consistentcy guideline to use all one or the other? (with the customary exception for the "%{__perl} Makefile.PL ..." incantation, of course) Missing BRs on perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) and perl(Test::More) (due to perl/perl-devel splittage). I tend to agree with you -- documentation in and of itself isn't a _reliable_ quality measurement at all -- but it has been customary for perl reviewers to enforce the enabling of this test (unless it fails, interestingly enough). I'd be all for overturning this custom -- good/bad/whatever documentation has no bearing on how code actually functions -- but I'd prefer to see a discussion on fedora-perl-devel first. + source files match upstream: cb08669ed566ef4070671cf57aa749e3 SGML-Parser-OpenSP-0.99.tar.gz cb08669ed566ef4070671cf57aa749e3 ../SGML-Parser-OpenSP-0.99.tar.gz + package meets naming and versioning 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 installs properly + debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. + final provides and requires are sane: ** perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP-0.99-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm == rpmlint W: perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP-0.99/samples/xml.dcl W: perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP-0.99/samples/test.soc == provides OpenSP.so()(64bit) perl(SGML::Parser::OpenSP) = 0.99 perl(SGML::Parser::OpenSP::Tools) perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP = 0.99-0.3.fc6 == requires libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libosp.so.5()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) perl >= 0:5.008 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Class::Accessor) perl(File::Temp) perl(SGML::Parser::OpenSP::Tools) perl(XSLoader) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(warnings) ** perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP-debuginfo-0.99-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm == rpmlint == provides OpenSP.so.debug()(64bit) perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP-debuginfo = 0.99-0.3.fc6 == requires + %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=20, Tests=246, 4 wallclock secs ( 2.31 cusr + 0.76 csys = 3.07 CPU) + 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. + 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. + 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