[Bug 202437] Review Request: perl-SDL - SDL bindings for the Perl language

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Aug 15 03:10:30 UTC 2006


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

Summary: Review Request: perl-SDL - SDL bindings for the Perl language


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202437


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu           |kevin at tummy.com




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2006-08-14 23:00 EST -------
Per talking with tibbs on IRC I am going to take over the review, as I had just 
started in on one just before he did. 

OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (LGPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
ab7fb92a1ed0db54a88839e64b9ce2c6  SDL_perl-1.20.3.tar.gz
ab7fb92a1ed0db54a88839e64b9ce2c6  SDL_perl-1.20.3.tar.gz.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
n/a - Spec handles locales/find_lang
n/a - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
n/a - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .so files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
n/a - .la files are removed.
n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - No rpmlint output.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it.
OK - Should build in mock.

Issues/Questions:

1. There is a SDL_perl 2.1.3 on CPAN:
http://search.cpan.org/~dgoehrig/SDL_Perl-2.1.3/
Is that version usable for the packages that use this version?
Or totally diffrent interface? If that package is imported someday
would it conflict with this one?


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list