Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=605674
Paul Howarth <paul(a)city-fan.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |paul(a)city-fan.org
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Paul Howarth <paul(a)city-fan.org> 2010-12-01 07:34:01 EST ---
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review checklist:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- rpmlint output mostly OK (see below)
- package and spec file naming OK
- package meets guidelines
- license as same as Perl, spec matches actual license
- no bundled license file to include
- spec file written in English and is legible
- sources match upstream (content and timestamp identical)
- package builds OK in mock for Rawhide
- build requirements OK
- no locale data to worry about
- no shared libraries to worry about
- no bundled libraries to worry about
- package makes no attempt to be relocatable (which is good)
- directory ownership is fine
- no duplicate files
- macro usage is consistent
- package is code, not content
- no large docs to concern ourselves with
- docs don't affect runtime
- no header files to worry about
- no static or other libraries to worry about
- no subpackages created or needed
- no libtool archives present
- package is not a GUI app so does not need a desktop file
- no non-ascii filenames
- supplied test suite run in %check and passes in Rawhide
- no scriptlets present or needed
- no pkgconfig files to worry about
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rpmlint output:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
perl-IO-InSitu.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rw -> re, r, w
perl-IO-InSitu.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rw -> re, r, w
perl-IO-InSitu.src:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab:
line 17)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Spelling "errors" are to be expected.
Mixed use of spaces and tabs can be trivially fixed by expanding the one tab in
the spec.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
requires:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.2)
perl(IO::File)
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
perl(base)
perl(Carp)
perl(File::Copy)
perl(File::Temp)
perl(strict)
perl(version)
perl(warnings)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
These are sane. The perl(base) requirement comes from "use base qw( IO::File
)";
the manual perl(IO::File) dependency covers this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
provides:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
perl(IO::InSitu)
perl-IO-InSitu = 0.0.2-3.fc15
These are also reasonable but it would be better if the perl(IO::InSitu)
provide was
versioned. The reason that it isn't is that the current auto-provides script
can't
extract the version from this code:
package IO::InSitu;
use version; $VERSION = qv('0.0.2');
You'd have to write a custom provides script to fix that (I did one for
perl-Mail-Mbox-MessageParser), but I wouldn't say that was a blocker.
RPM itself may grow a better perl provides/requires checker once rpm 4.9 lands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This package is good to go (assuming the tab in the spec is expanded).
Now I just need convincing that you understand the Fedora Packaging Guidelines,
and a small number of package pre-reviews should do the trick.
--
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.