Request for approval: perl-Mail-SPF-Query and perl-Net-CIDR-Lite

[Paul Howarth]

Steven Pritchard wrote:
> amavisd-new (which I'm working on right now) and spamassassin both
> want this:
> 
>   http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Mail-SPF-Query-1.997-1.src.rpm
> 
> And this is a dependency:
> 
>   http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Net-CIDR-Lite-0.18-1.src.rpm

Starting with perl-Net-CIDR-Lite-0.18-1.src.rpm:

Good:
- rpmlint cleam
- package name obviously correct
- spec file name correct
- license correct
- tarball md5sum matches upstream
- package builds fine on FC4
- no buildrequires needed
- no locale data to worry about
- no shared libraries to worry about
- no relocations
- all directories owned properly
- no duplicate files
- no bogus permissions
- clean section present and correct
- no optimization macros needed for noarch perl package
- package contains code, not content
- no large documentation files
- docs don't affect running of code
- no header files, libraries or pkgconfig files to worry about
- no scriptlets or subpackages to worry about

Bad:
- license text not included in %%doc

I guess you could auto-generate this using:

perldoc -t perlgpl
and
perldoc -t perlartistic

Virtually all other perl module packages in Extras also neglect to 
include the license text, so I don't know how hard and fast this 
particular rule is. If you want to include the license text, I'm happy 
to approve this package; otherwise we'll have to have another debate - 
last time we had it the consensus appeared to be that the license text 
should be included, despite the multiple bad precedents.

Paul.