[Bug 754749] Review Request: perl-Glib-Object-Introspection - Dynamically create Perl language bindings

Tue Nov 22 22:43:12 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=754749

--- Comment #6 from Emmanuel Seyman <emmanuel.seyman at club-internet.fr> 2011-11-22 17:43:11 EST ---
=== 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=3533759

 [x] Rpmlint output:

perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
gobject -> object, g object
perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
libffi -> bailiff
perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk
-> gt, gt k
perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
webkit -> web kit, web-kit, website
perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
libsoup -> lib soup, lib-soup, libelous
perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
gobject -> object, g object
perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
libffi -> bailiff
perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
gtk -> gt, gt k
perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
webkit -> web kit, web-kit, website
perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
libsoup -> lib soup, lib-soup, libelous
perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Glib/Object/Introspection/Introspection.so
Introspection.so()(64bit)
perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Glib/Object/Introspection/Introspection.so
Introspection.so()(64bit)
perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/perl-Glib-Object-Introspection-0.003/LICENSE
perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Glib/Object/Introspection.pm

The spelling mistakes are rpmlint's usual false positives. You can fix the
private-shared-object-provides by using the perl default filter. Feel free to
do this with all your perl module packages.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl_default_filter

Please file a bug in CPAN's RT for the incorrect fsf address. This isn't a
blocker but it's in upstream's best interest to have the correct address.

 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
None specified, default used.

 [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.

This module is distributed under the LGPL but the License field says "GPLv2+".
What's going on?

 [x] 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.

bbcfe3c9a0bd392a9b6c826f319e6b03  Glib-Object-Introspection-0.003.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.
 [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.
 [x] 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 ===

 [!] Latest version is packaged.

Version 0.004 came out a few days ago.

 [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: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3533759
 [?] 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
Files=14, Tests=0,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.05 usr  0.03 sys +  0.44 cusr  0.11
csys =  0.63 CPU)
Result: NOTESTS

Say what? Please have the tests actually run. 

Fix the filter error, the License field, make the tests run and you're good to
go.

-- 
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.