[Bug 688786] Review Request: perl-NTLM - perl module for NTLM authentication

[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=688786

--- Comment #2 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann at redhat.com> 2011-03-18 01:10:34 EDT ---
General observations:

* use a macro for the version in the SOURCE0 line
* you don't need to explicitly Require perl(Digest::HMAC_MD5)
* please BR: perl(Test::Pod) to enable the test (not a blocker though)
* thanks for working with upstream to get the license clarified. However, we
now have a package that's (dual) licensed under the GPL, but does not ship with
a copy of the GPL. I'm not sure what needs to happen here, so am requesting
guidance from legal list. At the very least, please add the file that contains
that email to the %docs line, since it's considered part of the license now.

Also, unless you're planning to build this for EL5, you don't need:
* the BuildRoot: line
* the %clean section
* to clean the buildroot in the %install section.

Otherwise, all good! Hopefully, we'll get something definitive on the license
question pretty quickly.

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [/] Rpmlint output is clean:
$ rpmlint SPECS/perl-NTLM.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/perl-NTLM-1.05-1.fc14.src.rpm
perl-NTLM.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US IMAPClient ->
Clientship, Clientage, Clientele
perl-NTLM.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> Eg, eh, e
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/perl-NTLM-1.05-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
perl-NTLM.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US IMAPClient ->
Clientship, Clientage, Clientele
perl-NTLM.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> Eg, eh, e
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

 [/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific
items
 [/] 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.
     License type: GPL+ or artistic
 [!] 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.
* see above

 [/] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
$ md5sum SOURCES/NTLM-1.05.tar.gz 
5d148e88d96785d996bdd8e1517b9d8c  SOURCES/NTLM-1.05.tar.gz
$ md5sum ~/Download/NTLM-1.05.tar.gz 
5d148e88d96785d996bdd8e1517b9d8c  /home/rlandmann/Download/NTLM-1.05.tar.gz

 [/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2922596
 [/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [/] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
* yes, but see general comments above

 [-] The spec file handles locales properly (with the %find_lang macro)
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [/] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
 [/] Package is not relocatable.
 [/] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [/] Permissions on files are set properly
 [/] %files section includes a %defattr(...) line
 [!] Package consistently uses macros.
* please fix SOURCE0

 [-] 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 -static subpackage, if present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] -devel packages require base package with full versioning.
 [/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [/] Filenames are valid UTF-8

-- 
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.