[Bug 710699] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-Unique - Perl bindings for the C library "libunique"

Sat Jun 4 21:57:44 UTC 2011

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=710699

--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman <emmanuel.seyman at club-internet.fr> 2011-06-04 17:57:42 EDT ---
=== KEY ===

 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===

 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3111488

 [x] Rpmlint output:

perl-Gtk2-Unique.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libunique -> lib unique,
lib-unique, uniqueness
perl-Gtk2-Unique.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libunique -> lib
unique, lib-unique, uniqueness
perl-Gtk2-Unique.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libunique -> lib
unique, lib-unique, uniqueness
perl-Gtk2-Unique.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libunique ->
lib unique, lib-unique, uniqueness
perl-Gtk2-Unique.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Gtk2/Unique/Unique.so Unique.so()(64bit)
perl-Gtk2-Unique.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Gtk2/Unique/Unique.so Unique.so()(64bit)
perl-Gtk2-Unique.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Gtk2/Unique/Install/unique-autogen.h
perl-Gtk2-Unique.x86_64: W: manifest-in-perl-module
/usr/share/doc/perl-Gtk2-Unique-0.05/MANIFEST
perl-Gtk2-Unique.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Gtk2/Unique/Install/unique-perl.h
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

Silent, this is not.
The spelling mistakes are a false positive. Let's forget about them.
The private-shared-object-provides warnings will go away if you just add
%{?perl_default_filter} above the %description stanza. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl_default_filter for more details.
The MANIFEST should be removed.
The include files should probably be put in a -devel subpackage unless there's
a compelling reason not to.

 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
Yup. Note that this is no longer needed.

 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

WTF ?!
The package is licensed "GPL+ or Artistic" but the License field of the spec
says "LGPLv2+". Where did this come from ?

 [-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
0beb552933b765a017588563a71af123  Gtk2-Unique-0.05.tar.gz

 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
Note that defattr is no longer needed.

 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [!] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===

 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: rawxhide.x86_64
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3111488
 [?] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.
 [-] %check is present and the tests pass
Cannot be done since tests require DISPLAY

Please fix the errors I've pointed out.

-- 
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.