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

[Paul Howarth]

Steven Pritchard wrote:
> 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.

OK.

>>  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...

Please do, because as Nicolas noted, the result of not doing so is 
horrible things in the maillog if you're a spamassassin user. If that's 
done, it'd also be nice to add perl(Sys::Hostname::Long) >= 1.0 as a 
Requires:

>>- 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

This happened because the system I built the package on has sgid 
homedirs (where my build area is). It won't happen in the extras 
buildsystem, but you could fix it anyway if you wanted by setting the 
fourth parameter to "0755" in the defattr() macro in the files section.

>>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.

Maybe other users of the module might like them to be there though?

Paul.