[Bug 709290] Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-http10 - Legacy HTTP/1.0 support for LWP

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jun 9 14:09:18 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=709290

--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar <ppisar at redhat.com> 2011-06-09 10:09:17 EDT ---
Standalone and in-SRPM spec files differ in changelog entry. I will review the
standalone one as its time stamp is newer.

Source tar ball is original. Ok.
Summary verified from lib/LWP/Protocol/http10.pm. Ok.
License verified from lib/LWP/Protocol/http10.pm. Ok.
No perl C binding, noarch architecture is Ok.
Description verified from lib/LWP/Protocol/http10.pm. Ok.

TODO: Description contains orthographic mistake: `module _provide_ support'.
There should be `provides'.

TODO: No tests are presented, thus the package in question is not executed at
build time. You can remove all BuildRequires except perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker).

TODO: Remove %defattr from %files section as this is implicit already.

$ rpmlint perl-LWP-Protocol-http10.spec
../SRPMS/perl-LWP-Protocol-http10-6.02-1.fc16.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-LWP-Protocol-http10-6.02-1.fc16.noarch.rpm 
perl-LWP-Protocol-http10.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
implementor -> implement or, implement-or, implementer
perl-LWP-Protocol-http10.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http ->
HTTP, HP, HT
perl-LWP-Protocol-http10.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
implementor -> implement or, implement-or, implementer
perl-LWP-Protocol-http10.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http
-> HTTP, HP, HT
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
These are literals. Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-LWP-Protocol-http10-6.02-1.fc16.noarch.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                        0 Jun  9 15:56
/usr/share/doc/perl-LWP-Protocol-http10-6.02
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                      470 Apr  9 12:17
/usr/share/doc/perl-LWP-Protocol-http10-6.02/Changes
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                      866 Apr  9 12:15
/usr/share/doc/perl-LWP-Protocol-http10-6.02/README
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                     2164 Jun  9 15:56
/usr/share/man/man3/LWP::Protocol::http10.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                        0 Jun  9 15:56
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/LWP
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                        0 Jun  9 15:56
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/LWP/Protocol
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                     8857 Apr  9 12:15
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/LWP/Protocol/http10.pm
File permissions and layout is Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-LWP-Protocol-http10-6.02-1.fc16.noarch.rpm |sort |uniq -c
      1 perl(HTTP::Response) >= 6
      1 perl(HTTP::Status) >= 6
      1 perl(IO::Select)  
      1 perl(IO::Socket)  
      1 perl(LWP::Protocol) >= 6
      1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3)  
      1 perl(strict)  
      1 perl(vars)  
      1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
      1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
      1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
      1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
FIX: Require perl(URI::Escape) (lib/LWP/Protocol/http10.pm:74).

$ rpm -q --provides -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-LWP-Protocol-http10-6.02-1.fc16.noarch.rpm |sort |uniq -c
      1 perl(LWP::Protocol::http10) = 6.02
      1 perl-LWP-Protocol-http10 = 6.02-1.fc16
Binary provides Ok.

$ ~/bin/resolvedeps rawhide
../RPMS/noarch/perl-LWP-Protocol-http10-6.02-1.fc16.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.

Package builds in F16
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3121698). Ok.

Otherwise package is in line with Fedora and perl packaging guidelines.


Please correct all `FIX' prefixed issues, consider fixing `TODO' items, and
provide new spec file.

Resolution: Package NOT 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.



More information about the package-review mailing list