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-PKCS10 -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for PKCS10 support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237335 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-26 16:10 EST ------- I guess that SRPM URL should be http://www.hardakers.net/FE/perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-PKCS10-0.06-3.src.rpm instead. This fails to build for me on x86_64 with current rawhide; the tests fail due to a lack of Crypt::OpenSSL::RSA. I added a build-time dependency and everything builds fine. There's some oddness in the way this thing builds. It ends up -I/usr/local/ssl/include and -I/usr/local/include on the gcc command line; the former comes from the INC line in Makefile.PL, which is ill-advised. For whatever reason, the '-L/usr/local/ssl/lib' in LIBS doesn't make it onto the link line, although of course the '-lcrypto' does. I'm not sure where '-I/usr/local/include' is coming from; I'll have to check into it. Obviously this doesn't break anything for a mock build because there will never be anything in /usr/local there, but it cold cause reproducibility problems for users who may have whatever junk in there. Since it's pretty trivial to either patch it out or run a bit of Perl to just delete the offending INC line. The README file is a bit funny. It's so plainly useless that I'm not sure it's worth actually including it in the package. Review: * source files match upstream: 4514f2637c651242c2d2ebe974b167fe907eb514ec79e4683d951a40f50267d2 Crypt-OpenSSL-PKCS10-0.06.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. X BuildRequires are proper (needs perl(Crypt::OpenSSL::RSA)). ? 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: PKCS10.so()(64bit) perl(Crypt::OpenSSL::PKCS10) = 0.06 perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-PKCS10 = 0.06-3.fc7 = libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) perl >= 0:5.008000 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Exporter) perl(XSLoader) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass (once the proper BR: is added): All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=5, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.18 cusr + 0.00 csys = 0.18 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 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