[Bug 453287] Review Request: perl-Term-ReadLine-Gnu - Perl extension for the GNU Readline/History Library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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-Term-ReadLine-Gnu - Perl extension for the GNU Readline/History Library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453287


tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2008-06-28 22:07 EST -------
This is a tough one.  Until the bug is fixed, I don't know if we want to have
this package in the distro because it may just cause bug reports for any
software which might use it.  Below I'll just ignore the test suite, and I
wouldn't have any problems with approving it instantly were the test suite to
start working, but in the current state I just don't know what to do.  Perhaps
talk to the fedora-perl-devel list and see if anyone there has an opinion.

* source files match upstream:
   41206971d87c63cecb6c5892d9cd4c96b53aacd31279db7bf5571662352f9bac  
   Term-ReadLine-Gnu-1.17a.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 not included upstream.
* 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 is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   Gnu.so()(64bit)
   perl(Term::ReadLine::Gnu) = 1.17
   perl(Term::ReadLine::Gnu::AU)
   perl(Term::ReadLine::Gnu::Var)
   perl(Term::ReadLine::Gnu::XS)
   perl-Term-ReadLine-Gnu = 1.17a-2.fc10
  =
   libreadline.so.5()(64bit)
   libtinfo.so.5()(64bit)
   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
   perl(AutoLoader)
   perl(Carp)
   perl(DynaLoader)
   perl(Exporter)
   perl(Term::ReadLine::Gnu::XS)
   perl(strict)
   perl(vars)

* 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.


-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]