[Bug 461307] Review Request: perl-Software-License Packages that provide templated software licenses

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461307


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-10-01 13:54:40 EDT ---
The Source: URL seems incorrect; at least, I get 404 when trying to download
it.
Not sure what's up there, but I found the package at: 
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/R/RJ/RJBS/Software-License-%{version}.tar.gz

I don't see that this should hold up approval of this package, though; it may
simply be an error at CPAN.  I guess you can switch to the more complicated URL
or bug CPAN to fix the issue; either way works for me, and if nothing changes
then the automated source-fetching report will start bugging you.

After fixing that:

* source files match upstream:
   d5e2f5aca8813132eb3fd7306e56f0c9b2863625c7d545ab606c5b25d499b05d  
   Software-License-0.008.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   perl(Software::License) = 0.008
   perl(Software::License::AGPL_3)
   perl(Software::License::Apache_1_1)
   perl(Software::License::Apache_2_0)
   perl(Software::License::Artistic_1_0)
   perl(Software::License::Artistic_2_0)
   perl(Software::License::BSD)
   perl(Software::License::FreeBSD)
   perl(Software::License::GFDL_1_2)
   perl(Software::License::GPL_1)
   perl(Software::License::GPL_2)
   perl(Software::License::GPL_3)
   perl(Software::License::LGPL_2_1)
   perl(Software::License::LGPL_3_0)
   perl(Software::License::MIT)
   perl(Software::License::Mozilla_1_0)
   perl(Software::License::Mozilla_1_1)
   perl(Software::License::Perl_5)
   perl(Software::License::QPL_1_0)
   perl(Software::License::Sun)
   perl(Software::License::Zlib)
   perl(Software::LicenseUtils)
   perl-Software-License = 0.008-3.fc10
  =
   perl >= 0:5.006
   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
   perl(Data::Section)
   perl(Software::License::Artistic_1_0)
   perl(Software::License::GPL_1)
   perl(Sub::Install)
   perl(Text::Template)
   perl(base)
   perl(strict)
   perl(warnings)


* %check is present and all tests pass:
   All tests successful.
   Files=2, Tests=8,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr  0.01 sys +  0.06 cusr  0.01 
    csys =  0.09 CPU)
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

APPROVED!

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.