Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 187809
Summary: | Review Request: perl-GSSAPI - Perl extension providing access to the GSSAPIv2 library | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jose Pedro Oliveira <jose.p.oliveira.oss> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | steve |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-cvs+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-04-21 22:29:39 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Jose Pedro Oliveira
2006-04-03 18:21:49 UTC
Package builds fine in mock (devel branch) and rpmlint is silent. Issues: BuildRequires: perl is not allowed. Why %{perl_vendorarch}/GSSAPI* instead of just %{perl_vendorarch}/GSSAPI ? 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: 91d5029a32302aa02414c9c8e3353cec IO-Interface-0.98.tar.gz 91d5029a32302aa02414c9c8e3353cec IO-Interface-0.98.tar.gz-srpm * package builds in mock. X BuildRequires: perl not permitted. * a shared library is present, but it is not in the library search path and there is no need to run ldconfig. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directory it creates. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * 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. * does not own directories owned by other packages. (In reply to comment #2) > Issues: > BuildRequires: perl is not allowed. Has been changed. Personally I like to include the perl BR (in the past it has been required; a lot of perl specfiles include it). > Why %{perl_vendorarch}/GSSAPI* instead of just %{perl_vendorarch}/GSSAPI ? Because I want to include the module file GSSAPI.pm and the directory GSSAPI. > > Review: > ... > * source files match upstream: > 91d5029a32302aa02414c9c8e3353cec IO-Interface-0.98.tar.gz > 91d5029a32302aa02414c9c8e3353cec IO-Interface-0.98.tar.gz-srpm Wrong digests - this is GSSAPI not IO-Interface. jpo > Has been changed. Personally I like to include the perl BR (in the past it has > been required; a lot of perl specfiles include it). The steering committee has changed the requirement, so include it if you wish. > Wrong digests - this is GSSAPI not IO-Interface. Don't know how I messed that up; I must have cut from the wrong window. The actual checksums are: 2779227c30afa412415680da54b98a10 GSSAPI-0.21.tar.gz 2779227c30afa412415680da54b98a10 GSSAPI-0.21.tar.gz-srpm APPROVED Thanks for the review. Built for FC-4, FC-5, and devel. (In reply to comment #3) > Has been changed. Personally I like to include the perl BR (in the past it has > been required; a lot of perl specfiles include it). Hmm, a BR: perl is rather meaningless, but also doesn't hurt. If wanting to be pedantic, FE perl packages actually would BR: %{__perl} because they typically also Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) Note: This calls %{__perl} and will fail if __perl and the 'perl' program provided by the perl-rpm should ever diverge. Though this is rather unlikely to occur, it would hit should ever perl change its executable's name (/usr/bin/perl7, /usr/bin/perl5), or should the executable's directory ever change. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-GSSAPI New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 cvs done. |