[Bug 237883] Review Request: perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP - Perl interface to the OpenSP SGML and XML parser

[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-SGML-Parser-OpenSP - Perl interface to the OpenSP SGML and XML parser


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237883





------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu  2007-04-26 19:41 EST -------
There's a samples/ directory.  Why not include it in %doc?  For the purposes 
of this review, I added it.

Also...  perl is referred to as %{__perl}, while, e.g., rm isn't %{__rm}.
Doesn't it fit better with the consistentcy guideline to use all one or the
other?  (with the customary exception for the "%{__perl} Makefile.PL ..."
incantation, of course)

Missing BRs on perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) and perl(Test::More) (due to 
perl/perl-devel splittage).  I tend to agree with you -- documentation in and
of itself isn't a _reliable_ quality measurement at all -- but it has been 
customary for perl reviewers to enforce the enabling of this test (unless it 
fails, interestingly enough).  I'd be all for overturning this custom -- 
good/bad/whatever documentation has no bearing on how code actually 
functions -- but I'd prefer to see a discussion on fedora-perl-devel first.

+ source files match upstream:
 cb08669ed566ef4070671cf57aa749e3  SGML-Parser-OpenSP-0.99.tar.gz
 cb08669ed566ef4070671cf57aa749e3  ../SGML-Parser-OpenSP-0.99.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and versioning 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 installs properly
+ debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint is silent.
+ final provides and requires are sane:
 ** perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP-0.99-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm
 == rpmlint
 W: perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
 /usr/share/doc/perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP-0.99/samples/xml.dcl
 W: perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
 /usr/share/doc/perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP-0.99/samples/test.soc
 == provides
 OpenSP.so()(64bit)  
 perl(SGML::Parser::OpenSP) = 0.99
 perl(SGML::Parser::OpenSP::Tools)  
 perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP = 0.99-0.3.fc6
 == requires
 libc.so.6()(64bit)  
 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)  
 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)  
 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)  
 libm.so.6()(64bit)  
 libosp.so.5()(64bit)  
 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)  
 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)  
 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)  
 perl >= 0:5.008
 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)  
 perl(Carp)  
 perl(Class::Accessor)  
 perl(File::Temp)  
 perl(SGML::Parser::OpenSP::Tools)  
 perl(XSLoader)  
 perl(base)  
 perl(strict)  
 perl(warnings)  
 ** perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP-debuginfo-0.99-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm
 == rpmlint
 == provides
 OpenSP.so.debug()(64bit)  
 perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP-debuginfo = 0.99-0.3.fc6
 == requires
+ %check is present and all tests pass:
 All tests successful.
 Files=20, Tests=246,  4 wallclock secs ( 2.31 cusr +  0.76 csys =  3.07 CPU)
+ no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
+ 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.
+ not a GUI app.

-- 
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.