[Bug 232702] Review Request: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 - Low-Level Interface to bzip2 compression library

[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-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 - Low-Level Interface to bzip2 compression library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232702





------- Additional Comments From andreas at bawue.net  2007-03-17 15:14 EST -------
+ source files match upstream:    ebe26a1ca9aae874eada7636cf779d33 
Compress-Raw-Bzip2-2.004.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.
+ license is "GPL or Artistic".
+ latest version is being packaged.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ compiler flags are appropriate.
+ $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are being used.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installs properly
+ debuginfo package contains data.
+ rpmlint is silent.
+ final provides and requires are sane:
== provides
Bzip2.so()(64bit)
perl(Compress::Raw::Bunzip2)
perl(Compress::Raw::Bzip2)
perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 = 2.004-1.fc7
== requires
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
perl >= 0:5.004
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
perl(AutoLoader)
perl(Carp)
perl(Exporter)
perl(bytes)
perl(constant)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
- %check is present and all supported tests pass. However, Test::POD would be
useful as a BR
t/000prereq....ok
t/01bzip2......ok
t/99pod........skipped
        all skipped: Test::Pod 1.00 required for testing POD
All tests successful, 1 test skipped.
Files=3, Tests=158,  1 wallclock secs ( 0.27 cusr +  0.05 csys =  0.32 CPU)
+ no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
+ no duplication of system libraries.
+ 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.


MUST and SHOULD parts do look okay. I would suggest however adding a
BuildRequire for perl(Test::POD). That way you can prevent the skipping of the
third test.
Otherwise you can consider that package 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.