Request for approval: perl-Mail-SPF-Query and perl-Net-CIDR-Lite
Steven Pritchard
steve at silug.org
Mon Jul 18 17:53:03 UTC 2005
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 04:26:04PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> Bad:
> - missing BuildRequires (from Makefile.PL):
> perl(Net::DNS) >= 0.46,
Since I'm not doing "make test", this isn't a build requirement.
That said, the version isn't getting picked up automatically, so I'll
fix that.
> perl(Net::CIDR::Lite) >= 0.15,
Ditto.
> perl(Sys::Hostname::Long) >= 1.0
Again, it's not really a build requirement, because we're not doing
"make test".
Besides, that's an optional module.
250 eval { require Sys::Hostname::Long };
251 $query->{myhostname} = $@ ? hostname() : Sys::Hostname::Long::hostname_long();
> the latter is not yet included in Extras or up for review
All that said, I don't mind whipping up a package for it...
> - rpmlint output not empty, due to permissions issues on and in the
> samples directory. I'd fix the 2755 permission on the samples directory
> itself but wouldn't worry about the non-executable scripts in there
> (which are %%doc files)
2755? The directory looks right to me.
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Apr 26 2004 /usr/share/doc/perl-Mail-SPF-Query-1.997/sample
And you're right, the scripts themselves are just %doc, so there's
really no reason for them to be executable.
> - license text not included in %%doc
We'll have to discuss that...
> For discussion:
> - the test phase is skipped because it does a lot of external DNS
> lookups - is this the right thing to do?
It was failing intermittently here. I hate to have that kind of
uncertaintly in a package build.
> - there is a bug in the handling of non-SPF TXT records with "fallback"
> in Mail::SPF::Query; the attached patch is what I use in my own package
> of this module to fix it.
I'll take a look at that.
> I'd like to see spfd and spfquery brought into the alternatives system.
> This is because there are other implementations of these (e.g. in libspf
> and libspf2, both of which I hope to include in extras when they're
> ready), and it would be useful to be able to install them in parallel
> with this package.
Maybe they should just be included as %doc? I don't have any strong
feelings about them being in $PATH.
Steve
--
Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc.
Email: steve at kspei.com http://www.kspei.com/
Phone: (618)398-3000 Mobile: (618)567-7320
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list