|Summary:||Review Request: perl-CGI-Untaint-email - Validate an email address|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Jason Tibbitts <tibbs>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2006-09-21 17:39:55 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:||205884|
Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-09-09 15:46:23 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/perl-CGI-Untaint-email.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/perl-CGI-Untaint-email-0.03-1.src.rpm Description: Validate an email address New requirement for perl-Maypole. Depends on perl-Email-Valid (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205884).
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2006-09-15 19:53:46 UTC
The only issue I see is that you have two manual Requires: that duplicate unversioned requires that rpmbuild figures out on its own: perl(Email::Valid) perl(Email::Valid) >= 0.13 perl(Mail::Address) perl(Mail::Address) >= 1.40 There's probably no point in the versioned Email::Valid require because it was just added to the repo and so there's no older version that might be installed. I don't know about perl(Mail::Address); it looks like the 1.58 came out in 2003, so I think we're pretty much covered there as well. I'd say just go ahead and remove the manual Requires: for those packages and check in. Or, if you really want, filter those two unversioned automatic dependencies and check in. It's up to you. Review: * source files match upstream: 78bb576e038ece67d183d8c3b3ad2165 CGI-Untaint-email-0.03.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires are sane: perl(CGI::Untaint::email) = 0.03 perl(Mail::Address::overload) perl-CGI-Untaint-email = 0.03-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(CGI::Untaint) >= 0.07 X perl(Email::Valid) perl(Email::Valid) >= 0.13 X perl(Mail::Address) perl(Mail::Address) >= 1.40 perl(base) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=4, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.06 cusr + 0.01 csys = 0.07 CPU) * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED, assuming you agree with me about the manual Requires: bits.
Comment 2 Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-09-21 17:39:55 UTC