[Bug 553208] Review Request: perl-OpenGL - Perl OpenGL bindings

[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=553208


Matej Cepl <mcepl at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mcepl at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #3 from Matej Cepl <mcepl at redhat.com>  2010-01-07 12:20:48 EDT ---
+ GOOD: rpmlint is happy
bradford:rpmbuild$ rpmlint -i SRPMS/perl-OpenGL-0.62-1.fc12.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
bradford:rpmbuild$ rpmlint -i RPMS/x86_64/perl-OpenGL-*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
bradford:rpmbuild$ 
+ GOOD: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
+ GOOD: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Actually it should be GPLv2 only (not GPLv2+ ... cannot find anywhere "or
later").
+ GOOD: COPYRIGHT file is in %doc.
+ GOOD: The spec file is written in American English.
+ GOOD: The spec file for the package is legible.
+ GOOD: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
MD5: 905407fa94ca0fc9c1e0ae7c140a4272
+ GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
yes, builds on x86_64/F12
+ GOOD: it's noarch so no issues with other architectures.
+ GOOD: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
  No locale support.
+ GOOD: %post and %postun scripts OK
no scripts
+ GOOD: not relocatable
+ GOOD: A package owns all directories that it creates.
I don't like this in %files:
%{perl_vendorlib}/Perl/
Is this correct? Why not just
%{perl_vendorlib}/Perl/Tidy.pm
+ GOOD: A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ GOOD: Permissions on files are set automatically.
+ GOOD: Each package have a %clean section.
+ GOOD: Each package consistently use macros.
+ GOOD: The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ GOOD: No large documentation files, so no a -doc subpackage.
+ GOOD: Files registered in %doc does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ GOOD: No header files.
+ GOOD: No static libraries.
+ GOOD: No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ GOOD: .so file is provided in -devel package.
no .so outside of Perllands
+ GOOD: Correct Requires in -devel subpackage.
no -devel package
+ GOOD: No .la libtool archives.
+ GOOD: Packages does not contain GUI applications.
+ GOOD: Packages does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
+ GOOD: Runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
+ GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
+ GOOD: Includes license text.

APPROVED

-- 
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.