[Bug 698251] Review Request: perl-B-Hooks-OP-PPAddr - Hook into opcode execution

[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=698251

Mathieu Bridon <bochecha at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha at fedoraproject.org> 2011-04-21 04:31:58 EDT ---
[x] package passes
[-] not applicable
[!] package fails

== MUST ==

[x] rpmlint output
$ rpmlint -i perl-B-Hooks-OP-PPAddr.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint -i
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/perl-B-Hooks-OP-PPAddr-*
perl-B-Hooks-OP-PPAddr.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) opcode -> op code,
op-code, postcode
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

perl-B-Hooks-OP-PPAddr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> ai,
pi, ape
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

perl-B-Hooks-OP-PPAddr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opcodes ->
op codes, op-codes, postcodes
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

perl-B-Hooks-OP-PPAddr.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) opcode -> op
code, op-code, postcode
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

perl-B-Hooks-OP-PPAddr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api ->
ai, pi, ape
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

perl-B-Hooks-OP-PPAddr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opcodes
-> op codes, op-codes, postcodes
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

perl-B-Hooks-OP-PPAddr.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/B/Hooks/OP/PPAddr/Install/hook_op_ppaddr.h
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.

    => Those warnings can be safely ignored.

[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
[x] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file must be included in %doc
[x] The spec file must be written in American English
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL
    $ sha1sum B-Hooks-OP-PPAddr-0.03.tar.gz 
    34fcff8d10ea81b1020d290777ef4e868cb5f908  B-Hooks-OP-PPAddr-0.03.tar.gz
[x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture
[-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[-] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun
[x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review
[x] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly
[x] Each package must consistently use macros
[x] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[x] Header files must be in a -devel package
    => It is generally ok for Perl modules to include the header files in the
main package:
    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#.h_files_in_module_packages

[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[-] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
[-] Subpackages requiring the base package
[x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built
[-] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

== SHOULD ==

[x] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is
usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself
[-] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts


Package is 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.