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

[Steven Pritchard]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 04:26:04PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> Bad:
> - missing BuildRequires (from Makefile.PL):
>   perl(Net::DNS) >= 0.46,

Since I'm not doing "make test", this isn't a build requirement.

That said, the version isn't getting picked up automatically, so I'll
fix that.

>   perl(Net::CIDR::Lite) >= 0.15,

Ditto.

>   perl(Sys::Hostname::Long) >= 1.0

Again, it's not really a build requirement, because we're not doing
"make test".

Besides, that's an optional module.

250  eval { require Sys::Hostname::Long };
251  $query->{myhostname} = $@ ? hostname() : Sys::Hostname::Long::hostname_long();

>   the latter is not yet included in Extras or up for review

All that said, I don't mind whipping up a package for it...

> - rpmlint output not empty, due to permissions issues on and in the 
> samples directory. I'd fix the 2755 permission on the samples directory 
> itself but wouldn't worry about the non-executable scripts in there 
> (which are %%doc files)

2755?  The directory looks right to me.

drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                0 Apr 26  2004 /usr/share/doc/perl-Mail-SPF-Query-1.997/sample

And you're right, the scripts themselves are just %doc, so there's
really no reason for them to be executable.

> - license text not included in %%doc

We'll have to discuss that...

> For discussion:
> - the test phase is skipped because it does a lot of external DNS 
> lookups - is this the right thing to do?

It was failing intermittently here.  I hate to have that kind of
uncertaintly in a package build.

> - there is a bug in the handling of non-SPF TXT records with "fallback" 
> in Mail::SPF::Query; the attached patch is what I use in my own package 
> of this module to fix it.

I'll take a look at that.

> I'd like to see spfd and spfquery brought into the alternatives system. 
> This is because there are other implementations of these (e.g. in libspf 
> and libspf2, both of which I hope to include in extras when they're 
> ready), and it would be useful to be able to install them in parallel 
> with this package.

Maybe they should just be included as %doc?  I don't have any strong
feelings about them being in $PATH.

Steve
-- 
Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc.
Email: steve at kspei.com             http://www.kspei.com/
Phone: (618)398-3000               Mobile: (618)567-7320