Bug 167511
| Summary: | Review Request: perl-Apache-Session | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Steven Pritchard <steve> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-extras-list, tcallawa |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | http://search.cpan.org/dist/Apache-Session/ | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2005-09-13 22:58:31 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 163779, 167755 | ||
|
Description
Steven Pritchard
2005-09-03 20:36:52 UTC
You beat me to this one by four days. ;)
Review:
Good:
- rpmlint checks return nothing
- meets naming, packaging guidelines
- spec in am. english, legible
- source matches upstream
- compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing, unnecessary BR
- no libs, locales, docs, or need for -devel
- not relocatable
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code not content
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop
Needswork:
- License is GPL or Artistic, not just Artistic.
- I don't see any reason to conditionalize %check. Just go ahead and run it (and
always use the BR)
- You probably want to use %{perl_vendorlib}/Apache/ instead of
%{perl_vendorlib}/* in %files, otherwise, you won't own the directories that are
created.
Post a fixed spec file and I'll approve this package.
*** Bug 167753 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Oddly, almost every .pm says "Distribute under the Artistic License" while README says "Distribute under the same terms as Perl itself". I saw the line in Session.pm first. So do we call it GPL/Artistic or just Artistic? Go with what the source says. Might not be a bad idea to point out the discontinuity to upstream, but don't let it hold you back on this package. (Sorry for the delay. Apparently I forgot to submit this.) Spec URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Apache-Session/perl-Apache-Session.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Apache-Session-1.6-2.src.rpm APPROVED. |