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-File-LibMagic - perl interface to LibMagic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435303 ------- Additional Comments From rjones@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-03-01 07:22 EST ------- + rpmlint output rpmlint is clean + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name - package should satisfy packaging guidelines It needs to Require the exact Perl module, by adding: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) (cf: http://www.math.uh.edu/~tibbs/perl-Dir-Which.spec) + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm md5: 037150b3131a566b518a7042f9a8d527 + package successfully builds on at least one architecture i386 + ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies + %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content + large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package + header files should be in -devel + static libraries should be in -static + packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' + libfoo.so must go in -devel + -devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files + packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file - packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages This is wrong: %{perl_vendorarch}/* Name the directories it uses more specifically, otherwise it ends up owning the shared File directory. (That's my understanding -- the policy is vague and contradictory in this area). + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: + if there is no license file, packager should query upstream + translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available ? reviewer should build the package in mock ? the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures ? review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane + pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin -------------- Just fix the two points raised above and post another spec/SRPM, and if those are fixed there shouldn't be a problem with approval. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review