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 205885 - Review Request: perl-CGI-Untaint-email - Validate an email address
Summary: Review Request: perl-CGI-Untaint-email - Validate an 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
Depends On: 205884
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2006-09-09 15:46 UTC by Tom "spot" Callaway
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-09-21 17:39:55 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-09-09 15:46:23 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: Validate an email address

New requirement for perl-Maypole. Depends on perl-Email-Valid (

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2006-09-15 19:53:46 UTC
The only issue I see is that you have two manual Requires: that duplicate
unversioned requires that rpmbuild figures out on its own:
   perl(Email::Valid) >= 0.13
   perl(Mail::Address) >= 1.40

There's probably no point in the versioned Email::Valid require because it was
just added to the repo and so there's no older version that might be installed.
  I don't know about perl(Mail::Address); it looks like the 1.58 came out in
2003, so I think we're pretty much covered there as well.

I'd say just go ahead and remove the manual Requires: for those packages and
check in.  Or, if you really want, filter those two unversioned automatic
dependencies and check in.  It's up to you.

* source files match upstream:
   78bb576e038ece67d183d8c3b3ad2165  CGI-Untaint-email-0.03.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(CGI::Untaint::email) = 0.03
   perl-CGI-Untaint-email = 0.03-1.fc6
   perl(CGI::Untaint) >= 0.07
X  perl(Email::Valid)
   perl(Email::Valid) >= 0.13
X  perl(Mail::Address)
   perl(Mail::Address) >= 1.40
* %check is present and all tests pass:
   All tests successful.
   Files=1, Tests=4,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.06 cusr +  0.01 csys =  0.07 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.

APPROVED, assuming you agree with me about the manual Requires: bits.

Comment 2 Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-09-21 17:39:55 UTC

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