[Bug 489614] Review Request: perl-Authen-Krb5-Admin - Perl extension for MIT Kerberos 5 admin interface

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Mar 13 20:21:56 UTC 2009


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=489614





--- Comment #11 from Christian Krause <chkr at plauener.de>  2009-03-13 16:21:55 EDT ---
Thanks to all for the reviews and clarifications!

(In reply to comment #4)
> * In the build.log I see:
>    checking for libk5crypto ... not found (using libcrypto)
> This is not found because we have this line in Makefile.PL
>    my $KRB5_LIBDIR = "$PREFIX/lib"    ;
> I think this line need to be patched or sed'ed to use the correct %{_lib}

Fixed. Package builds now without the missing lib message on both 64bit archs:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1240524

> ! BR: krb5-devel is unnecessary. openssl-devel will pull that up.

Removed.

> ? This package owns the same directories with the perl-Authen-Krb5 package. Is
> this intentional? Or should this package require perl-Authen-Krb5? I know that
> there is an exception rule for perl packages. I was wondering if this package
> makes use of that exception rule.

Yes, I think that the mentioned exception from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Directory_Ownership applies.

> ! Please make the description span the 80 columns.

Fixed.

> * Each package must consistently use macros. You should either use the "perl,
> make, chmod, ..." notation or "%{__perl}, %{__make}, %{__chmod}, ..." notation.
> A mixture is not desired.  

Fixed.

Regarding the license I've chosen the 2nd option offered by spot.

The new packages are uploaded:

Spec URL: http://chkr.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Authen-Krb5-Admin.spec
SRPM URL:
http://chkr.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Authen-Krb5-Admin-0.11-2.fc10.src.rpm

-- 
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.




More information about the package-review mailing list