[Bug 166253] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-GladeXML

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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-Gtk2-GladeXML


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166253





------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com  2005-08-19 11:02 EST -------
perl-Gtk2-GladeXML-1.005-3.src.rpm
builds in mock for fc4

rpmlint perl-Gtk2-GladeXML-1.005-3.fc4.i386.rpm
W: perl-Gtk2-GladeXML devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6/i386-linux-thread-multi/Gtk2/GladeXML/Install/gladexmlperl.h

Now the review guidelines say that all header files must be in devel subpackage,
but so far I can't find any examples of a contributed perl package that follows
this rule. So i'm pretty sure we can ignore this because its a perl package.
Both perl-Glib and perl-Gtk2 for example have similar files without a devel package.

Good:
meets packaging naming guides for perl packages
spec name matches
licensed GPL and text included in the doc section
matches upstream source md5 097ab67c4f0025b74e721ae835a2d554
owns all created directories
legible spec
check and clean sections look good
no shared objects in linker path to worry about

I'm not seeing any obvious blockers. But I would like to ask why you are doing
  find examples -type f -exec chmod -x {} ';'
to remove the executable bit on the sample scripts?  If you are going to remove
the executable bit should you include a short additional readme file in the
examples directory tell users they need to run the examples under a call to perl
instead of trying to re-enabled the x bit.

-jef

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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.