[Bug 799284] Review Request: perl-Pod-Plainer - Perl extension for converting Pod to old-style Pod

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Mar 27 09:19:50 UTC 2012


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=799284

Petr Šabata <psabata at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #5 from Petr Šabata <psabata at redhat.com> 2012-03-27 05:19:49 EDT ---
> FIX: The package doesn't build due to missing build dependencies; add 
> perl(Test::More) and, optionally, perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) >= 1.00 to your
> BRs.

OK.

> FIX: The URL is wrong; correct it to http://search.cpan.org/dist/Pod-Plainer

OK.

> FIX: Also the SPEC filename is just lowercase.  This needs to be fixed too.

perl-pod-plainer.spec again?  Not OK. 

> FIX: Remove useless Provides; this is created automatically by rpmbuild.

OK.

> TODO: Also, you don't have to explicitly require perl(Pod::Parser),
> rpmbuild gets this.

OK.

> TODO: Use %{version} in Source tag.

OK.

> FIX: Your package doesn't require Perl MODULE_COMPAT.  Add 
> "perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version))" to
> your Requires.

OK.

> TODO: Don't package META* in %doc.  There's nothing of interest for the 
> end-user.

OK.

> TIP: Don't rely on gzip manpage compression.  Replace '.gz' with '*'.

OK.

> TIP: You don't have to use OPTIMIZE since this is a noarch package, as you 
> also state on line 28. 

OK.

> FIX: Don't define PREFIX, and especially -- don't use hardcoded paths like
> '/usr'.

You don't have to define PREFIX at all.

--
I'm approving this package.  Just please use the correct letter case in your
SPEC file name before you import it.

-- 
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