[Bug 189048] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Apr 22 02:40:06 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-CPANPLUS


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189048





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-04-21 22:39 EST -------
Funny, I was in the middle of the review when you commented....

Issues:
The Requires: filter is:

@@PERL_REQ@@ "$@" | sed -e '/^perl(Your::Module::Here)$/d'

I'm not sure what you wanted to filter there.

rpmlint is unhappy:
E: perl-CPANPLUS useless-explicit-provides perl(CPANPLUS::Config)
W: perl-CPANPLUS hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/CPANPLUS/inc/.inc
E: perl-CPANPLUS zero-length /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/CPANPLUS/inc/.inc

I don't quite understand the first error; there is no such explicit Provide: in
the .spec so RPM must be generating it.
I'm not sure wiere the .inc file is coming from or what it's supposed to do.

Review:
* 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:
   c9e9831d24d69b1f690d8b4967436899  CPANPLUS-0.061.tar.gz
   c9e9831d24d69b1f690d8b4967436899  CPANPLUS-0.061.tar.gz-srpm
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock.
X rpmlint is silent.
* 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.
O %check is present but necessarily disabled.
* 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-package-review mailing list