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-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for Random Number support -- SPONSOR NEEDED https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237331 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-09 20:29 EST ------- Buildrequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) is needed to cope with the perl-devel split. I don't see any other requirements in Makefile.PL or the test suite. However, there's one very significant problem with this package: I can find no statement of the license anywhere. You've indicated "GPL or Artistic"; I'm curious where that comes from. Unfortunately packages with no license statements are simply not acceptable as-is; we at least need an email from the author indicating the license the package is under. * source files match upstream: eff9477303a70308596c0b41623294f9584855270ad9997a06354d6d6f9e87e8 Crypt-OpenSSL-Random-0.03.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 not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: Random.so()(64bit) perl(Crypt::OpenSSL::Random) = 0.03 perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random = 0.03-2.fc7 = libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(AutoLoader) perl(Carp) perl(DynaLoader) perl(Exporter) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: 1..1 ok 1 ok 2 ok 3 ok 4 * 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 static libraries. * 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