[Bug 467175] Review Request: perl-Set-Object - Set of objects and strings

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467175


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-12-06 17:35:48 EDT ---
FE-Legal is still there, but it seems that you've done what spot asked so I'll
go ahead and review this.  I'll just pass over the license bits and let spot
indicate whether things are done properly.

It's a bit odd to see a perl specfile that wasn't autogenerated with cpanspec
like almost all of the other perl packages in the distro.  Not a problem, of
course; I just have to check everything a bit closer.

rpmlint complains:
  perl-Set-Object.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.26-2.fc9 
   ['1.26-2.fc11', '1.26-2']
We don't generally include the dist tag in changelog entries, as they are
generally not correct.

Is there some reason you do not run the included test suite?  It needs to be
run in a %check section if possible.  (The specfile generators do this for
you.)  It seems to run fine for me as long as I add build dependencies on
Test::More, Test::Pod and Test::Pod::Coverage.

Your %files section could be a whole lot simpler:
  %files 
  %defattr(-, root, root, 0755)
  %doc Changes.pod META.yml README license.txt
  %{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
  %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/Set/
  %{perl_vendorarch}/Set/

I guess you can obsfucate if you really want to, but I'm not sure why as it
just makes things tougher on the next person who looks at th epackage.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   b2c2b5c2a5af1dae37b241c50a553a6044070db2fe23c6d47b6acf8e78e6a3c3  
   Set-Object-1.26.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* latest version is being packaged.
 BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has a valid complaint.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   Object.so()(64bit)
   perl(Set::Object) = 1.26
   perl(Set::Object::Weak)
   perl-Set-Object = 1.26-2.fc11
   perl-Set-Object(x86-64) = 1.26-2.fc11
  =
   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
   perl(AutoLoader)
   perl(Carp)
   perl(DynaLoader)
   perl(Exporter)
   perl(Set::Object)
   perl(Set::Object::Weak)
   perl(base)
   perl(strict)
   perl(vars)

X %check is not present, but should be.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.