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=757156
Willington Vega wvega@wvega.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wvega@wvega.com
--- Comment #1 from Willington Vega wvega@wvega.com 2011-12-02 08:50:51 EST --- Hello Jan,
I'm currently learning about Fedora package guidelines so I can't sponsor you, but I would like to provide an informal review for your package.
rpmlint return no errors for your SPEC: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint return some warnings for the SRPM you provided and generated RPMs packages, but I don't think that's a problem: perl-Env-C.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getenv -> Genet perl-Env-C.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setenv -> seventeen perl-Env-C.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unsetenv -> unsweetened perl-Env-C.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US environ -> environs, environment 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
The package builds also builds in mock.
Also, the spec file includes the following when listing directory ownership:
%{perl_vendorarch}/auto/* %{perl_vendorarch}/Env*
but the Perl packaging guidelines[1] says it should be:
# For arch-specific packages: vendorarch %{perl_vendorarch}/* %exclude %dir %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/
will that work for this package?
Also, I went through the MUST and SHOULD[2] and couldn't find any blockers. One of the SHOULDs I want to note is that there is no license text as separated file in the sources.
Hope this helps to get more attention to and improve your package.
1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl 2. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines