Bug 452455
| Summary: | Review Request: perl-DateTime-Locale - Localization support for DateTime.pm | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nigel Jones <dev> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-06-23 08:41:09 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: | 452450 | ||
|
Description
Nigel Jones
2008-06-23 03:26:13 UTC
remove BR: perl from SPEC Is cldr license approved license? I don't see its mentioned on Licensing page. Also, build failed as missing BR:perl(Test::More) see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=675973 (In reply to comment #1) > remove BR: perl from SPEC Done > Is cldr license approved license? I don't see its mentioned on Licensing page. I suspect this is out of date, I'll have a look around and see. (In reply to comment #2) > Also, build failed as missing BR:perl(Test::More) > see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=675973 Fixed Spec URL: http://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/perl-DateTime-Locale.spec SRPM URL: http://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/perl-DateTime-Locale-0.4001-2.fc9.src.rpm Lets see about the licensing situation though. Review: + package builds in mock. Koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=675976 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 04cd7e65e4c773dfce972699aafc1f64 DateTime-Locale-0.4001.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test is ok. All tests successful, 2 tests and 1 subtest skipped. Files=10, Tests=9379, 4 wallclock secs ( 3.87 cusr + 0.13 csys = 4.00 CPU) Except license everything else look ok to me. my question is can we see if CLDR license can be approved license and can we specify it in License tag also? I missed rpmlint output in above review. you need to work on following warning perl-DateTime-Locale.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/perl-DateTime-Locale-0.4001/Changes The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile for example using iconv(1). ==> use iconv to fix The DateTime::Locale (and DateTime::TimeZone) modules are packaged bundled with DateTime in Fedora already. See Bug #167376. oops my bad. I just checked this package exists in fedora using yum search DateTime I should have checked its contents first before doing review of this package. Just looked into perl-DateTime.spec and found that this package is part of existing perl-DateTime package in fedora. In this case I am going to CLOSE this review as NOTABUG. Sorry Nigel for taking your time to update initial submitted package. |