[Bug 183888] Review Request: perl-Crypt-RSA

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Apr 13 14:34:52 UTC 2006

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-Crypt-RSA


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-04-13 10:34 EST -------
I'm keeping a local repo with the dependency chain in it so that I can do
reviews of these; I can't see anything that would keep Math::Pari from being
approved so I'm just working on the assumption that it will eventually make its
way into Extras.

W: perl-Crypt-RSA file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man3/Crypt::RSA.3pm.gz

This is due to a single accented 'e' in the POD.  "iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8"
should fix it up.

Artistic license is included, but not GPL.  Not a blocker, but upstream should
probably be whacked.

I'm not sure what to do with the two files in extradocs.  One of them is
referenced from the main manpage, but it also references an interoperability
table which doesn't seem to be included.

Otherwise it looks clean.

* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and
conforms to the Perl template.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  It's not included separately in the
package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it.
* source files match upstream:
   3fd02d3d9e398e26848a0d49bd3b8ccd  Crypt-RSA-1.57.tar.gz
   3fd02d3d9e398e26848a0d49bd3b8ccd  Crypt-RSA-1.57.tar.gz-srpm
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock.
X rpmlint complains of non-utf8 documentation; see above.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is present and all tests pass.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list