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
Bug 205884 - Review Request: perl-Email-Valid - Check validity of internet email address
Summary: Review Request: perl-Email-Valid - Check validity of internet email address
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jason Tibbitts
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
: 189184 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT 205885
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2006-09-09 15:44 UTC by Tom "spot" Callaway
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-09-15 19:16:41 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Fixed spec file (deleted)
2006-09-11 15:11 UTC, Tom "spot" Callaway
no flags Details

Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-09-09 15:44:38 UTC
Spec URL:
This module determines whether an email address is well-formed, and optionally,
whether a mail host exists for the domain or whether the top level domain of
the email address is valid.

New requirement for perl-Maypole.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2006-09-09 15:47:47 UTC
*** Bug 189184 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Jason Tibbitts 2006-09-09 16:19:28 UTC
This fails to build in the same way that bug 189184 fails; missing build
requirements kill the test suite.

I suggest adding BR: perl(Test::Pod) and perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) to get some
additional test suite coverage, and bind-utils so that the test suite doesn't
die due to lack of nslookup.  This stikk skips a bunch of tests for some reason,
but it allows the package to build.

Comment 3 Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-09-11 15:11:15 UTC
Created attachment 136003 [details]
Fixed spec file

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2006-09-15 18:03:31 UTC
I grabbed a copy of the SRPM from:

and updated it with the above attached specfile.  The result looks better.

rpmlint says:
  W: perl-Email-Valid mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
  (no big deal; the errant tab is on the BuildRequireas: bind-utils line if you
want to remove it).

The only real issue I see is that you manually specify Requires:
perl(Mail::Address) which is duplicated by RPM's automatic dependency generation
and thus should be removed.

Some tests are skipped; running with TEST_VERBOSE=1 shows this:
   ok 12 # skip your dns appears missing or failing to resolve
   ok 13 # skip your dns appears missing or failing to resolve
This is due to building in mock with no DNS config.
   ok 14 # skip tests require Net::Domain::TLD 1.65
   ok 15 # skip tests require Net::Domain::TLD 1.65
   ok 16 # skip tests require Net::Domain::TLD 1.65
Net::Domain::TLD is not in the repo so this is unavoidable at this time.

* source files match upstream:
   c71a350965c97473af80edfa1bff0b63  Email-Valid-0.176.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
X final provides and requires are sane:
   perl(Email::Valid) = 0.176
   perl-Email-Valid = 0.176-2.fc6
X  perl(Mail::Address)
* %check is present and all tests pass:
        5/16 skipped: various reasons
   All tests successful, 5 subtests skipped.
   Files=3, Tests=18, 36 wallclock secs ( 0.18 cusr +  0.04 csys =  0.22 CPU)
* 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.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.


Comment 5 Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-09-15 19:16:41 UTC
Built. Thanks for the review.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.