[Bug 478553] Review Request: perl-WWW-Curl - Perl extension interface for libcurl
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jan 14 20:17:48 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478553
Michal Nowak <mnowak at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Michal Nowak <mnowak at redhat.com> 2009-01-14 15:17:46 EDT ---
perl-WWW-Curl
MUST Items:
[OK] * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.[1]
[OK] * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[OK] * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[OK] * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[OK] * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
MIT derivate
[OK] * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license. [3]
[OK] * MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4]
[N/A] * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
Dunno I am not a linguist.
[OK] * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[OK] * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
a49d09edc7491d9d8abec3ef79799853 /home/newman/WWW-Curl-4.05.tar.gz
a49d09edc7491d9d8abec3ef79799853 SOURCES/WWW-Curl-4.05.tar.gz
[OK] * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] MUST: If the package does
not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those
architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture
listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason
that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug
number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[8]
Builds on all primary archs.
[OK] * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
Build in mock & koji just fine.
[N/A] * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.[9]
No such support present.
[N/A] * MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
This is interpreted languange. Even though it includes Curl.so library it is
not treated the ldconfig way.
[N/A] * MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager
must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization
for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [11]
[OK] * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which
does create that directory. [12]
[OK] * MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing. [13]
[OK] * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line. [14]
[OK] * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
[OK] * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[OK] * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[N/A] * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
[OK] * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [18]
Only Linux related docs are present.
[N/A] * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
[N/A] * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
[N/A] * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [21]
[N/A] * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package. [19]
[N/A] * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [22]
[OK] * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
[OK] * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged
GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the
spec file with your explanation. [23]
[OK] * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by
other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be
installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely
upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share
ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man
package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory
that another package owns, then please present that at package review time.
[24]
[OK] * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25]
[OK] * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26]
--
Just a note for packager from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl
"""
Set inital-cc to 'perl-sig'
It's common practice to set the Fedora perl SIG mailing list as a member of the
initial-cc list for bugzilla. This can be done by adding the user perl-sig to
the initial CC list.
"""
--
Don't forget to package clive2 soon :).
--
This package is APPROVED by me.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list