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=476386 manuel wolfshant <wo...@nobugconsulting.ro> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from manuel wolfshant <wo...@nobugconsulting.ro> 2009-01-03 16:23:43 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM:empty [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type according to spec: Artistic (same as perl) License type according to source: unclear, probably (GPL+ or Artistic). See also note 1 [x] 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 is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: 14c8c0227f290e7358fa8bb12f86f03bf2255f8f Verilog-Perl-3.100.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. See note 2 [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: koji scratch build [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: koji scratch build [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [*] Make test is OK ====== Notes ====== 1. It's a bit unclear to me what license the programmer wants to use. All source files written in Perl start with: // Copyright 2000-2009 by Wilson Snyder. This program is free software; // you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either the GNU // General Public License or the Perl Artistic License. // and end with: Copyright 2000-2009 by Wilson Snyder. This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either the GNU Lesser General Public License or the Perl Artistic License. I am far from being an expert but IMHO using "(artistic or GPL+) and (artistic or LGPL+)" does not fly because GPL and LGPL are specified in the same file. I assume GPL+ takes precedence, but I strongly suggest to ask the author what's the real intent (and maybe also adding the corresponding GPL or LGPL license file to the tarball, too). Anyway, all the licenses involved are free, so I will not block the review because of this. 2. /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/auto/Verilog is listed twice. At the first glance it looks like removing the %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/Verilog line will fix this. ================ *** APPROVED *** but please take care of the above two problems before commit. ================ -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
