[Bug 200492] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-Sexy

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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-Gtk2-Sexy


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200492





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-07-31 21:37 EST -------
I had to add BR: libxml2-devel in order to get this to build.  Once that was
done, rpmlint just has:

W: perl-Gtk2-Sexy devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Gtk2/Sexy/Install/sexy-autogen.h

which is normal for Perl modules.

The debuginfo package is missing the source:

cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/Sexy.c: No such file or directory
cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/SexyIconEntry.c: No such file or directory
cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/SexySpellEntry.c: No such file or directory
cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/SexySpellEntry.xs: No such file or directory
cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/SexyTooltip.c: No such file or directory
cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/SexyTreeView.c: No such file or directory
cpio: Gtk2-Sexy-0.02/SexyUrlLabel.c: No such file or directory

but I'm pretty sure that's just rpm bustedness.  You can fix it by adding one
line to the end of %build:

cp xs/* .

I'm not really sure it's necessary, but it does result in a proper debuginfo
package and shouldn't harm anything, even with short-circuit builds.  (Something
like this is needed for many Java packages as well.)

It's pretty much pointless to run the test suite within mock, but I did install
the built package locally and the examples seemed to run well enough.  However,
in order to run the examples I had to install perl-Gtk2.  Is this package useful
at all without perl-Gtk2 installed?

I don't see any blockers except for the missing BR:; what do you think about the
debuginfo fix and the perl-Gtk2 dependency?

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   59433b6b2f2d72c5dfcc0d1dd0c5e7d7  Gtk2-Sexy-0.02.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
? debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has only ignorable errors.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   Sexy.so()(64bit)
   perl(Gtk2::Sexy) = 0.02
   perl(Gtk2::Sexy::Install::Files)
   perl-Gtk2-Sexy = 0.02-2.fc6
  =
   libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
   libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libsexy.so.2()(64bit)
   libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)
   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
   perl(base)
   perl(strict)
   perl(warnings)
* %check is present but isn't possibly going to run in mock.
* shared libraries are present (internal to Perl)
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.

-- 
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.