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: netcdf-perl Perl extension module for scientific data access via the netCDF API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215444 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-22 17:16 EST ------- I am not sure about the name. Maybe you could add a virtual Provides: perl-NetCDF = %{version}-%{release} It is not obvious since there is already the perl(NetCDF) provides. I've just reread the naming guidelines, and it may be interpreted as acceptable to keep netcdf-perl since it is not a CPAN module. * Rpmlint output may be ignored: W: netcdf-perl invalid-license NetCDF W: netcdf-perl invalid-license NetCDF W: netcdf-perl doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/netcdf-perl-1.2.3/test.pl perl(strict) W: netcdf-perl doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/netcdf-perl-1.2.3/test.pl perl(warnings) W: netcdf-perl doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/netcdf-perl-1.2.3/test.pl /usr/bin/perl W: netcdf-perl-debuginfo invalid-license NetCDF * license is not OSI compatible, but upstream has agreed to relicense using an OSI compatible license * follow packaging guidelines * source match upstream 936c91794d82ff8cfe2a955d4cad4c27 netcdf-perl-1.2.3.tar.Z * sane provides (with the classical bogus NetCDF.so) Provides: NetCDF.so perl(NetCDF) * %files section right. The naming is not obviously right, and not obviously wrong either, so I won't make it a blocker. If other reviewer disagree we'll see then, but in the meantime, it is APPROVED -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
