[Bug 671106] Review Request: perl-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes

[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=671106

Matej Cepl <mcepl at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mcepl at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Matej Cepl <mcepl at redhat.com> 2011-01-20 08:54:27 EST ---
For consideration:

*******************
You don't have Mail::Mbox::MessageParser installed. If you want to get
significantly faster parsing, you should install this module from the CPAN.

If you do so, you are advised to do it before issuing 'make test' on this
module because otherwise the new parsing routines can't be tested on your
platform.
*******************

Shouldn't we pull in Mail::Mbox::MessageParser as well?

+ GOOD: rpmlint is happy
jakoubek:build $ rpmlint -i SRPMS/perl-Mail-MboxParser-0.55-1.fc15.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
jakoubek:build $ rpmlint -i
RPMS/noarch/perl-Mail-MboxParser-0.55-1.fc15.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
jakoubek:build $ 

+ 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.
No problem, it is not included in the tarball either.
+ 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: 1b9fdb367db36ec94e7b5c6721f11221
+ GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
yes, builds in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2733008
+ 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.
+ 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 permissible 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.
- BAD : Runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
No, why?
+ GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
+ GOOD: Includes license text.

Please, fix %install section. With that

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.