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-libwhisker2 - Perl module geared specificly for HTTP testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239096 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias|perl-libwhisker2 | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-07 22:00 EST ------- Looks clean, but there are a couple of problems: W: perl-libwhisker2 unversioned-explicit-obsoletes perl-libwhisker W: perl-libwhisker2 unversioned-explicit-provides perl-libwhisker When you obsolete a package in this manner, you need to use versioned provides and obsoletes. The simplest thing is to obsolete <= the current perl-libwhisker version, and provide current version+epsilon. libwhisker2-2.4-lw1bridge.patch basically adds a GPL license statement onto a file. While I agree that it's best if each source file contains the (abbreviated) license statement, this is generally something that upstream should be doing instead of package maintainers. There's a test suite, and it actually works fine, but because it uses fixed ports it's not really suitable for running within the buildsys. Stick this in a %check section to run it: cd t perl ./test.pl Still, it would need to be commented out in the spec or made conditional on a flag so the buildsys wouldn't break. There's a typo in the Source0: line; "wiretripnet" should be "wiretrip.net". I'm not sure why you have those BuildRequires:; the package seems identical without them. What you may need is some Requires: instead, because the built package doesn't end up with any. Oddly, though, the test suite still passes. * source files match upstream: 5d136f6de318e140a03f76a50392628ed7d00fbee297579ae29b81466f8c8e00 libwhisker2-2.4.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 OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. ? BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly X rpmlint has complaints about unversioned provides and obsoletes. ? the dependencies seem a bit light: perl(LW) perl(LW2) perl-libwhisker perl-libwhisker2 = 2.4-1.fc7 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(LW2) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is not present. There is a test suite, but it's not appropriate for running inside the buildsys. All tests pass when run manually. * 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. -- 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