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-EV - Wrapper for the libev high-performance event loop library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448613 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |182235 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-18 16:01 EST ------- rpmlint says this: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/EV/ev.h W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/EV/EVAPI.h but these are normal for binary Perl packages. I'm not sure about the license. libev itself has a (2-clause) BSD licence, but the Perl module is the usual GPL+ or Artistic. libev seems to be built internally, and I've no idea whether it could be built standalone. So I'm not at all sure what the final license is. I'll ask the Legal folks to take a look. * source files match upstream: 53e061fad687087e857f66a380eac2d39a9536542b84150ce4a7a3e209fe1245 EV-3.42.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * 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. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: EV.so()(64bit) perl(EV) = 3.42 perl(EV::MakeMaker) perl-EV = 3.42-1.fc10 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(Config) perl(XSLoader) perl(base) perl(strict) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=10, Tests=6823, 7 wallclock secs ( 0.18 cusr + 0.05 csys = 0.23 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 -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are OK in the main package. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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