Bug 454687 (perl-Mail-ClamAV)

Summary: Review Request: perl-Mail-ClamAV - Perl extension for the clamav virus scanner
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Steven Pritchard <steve>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jason Tibbitts <tibbs>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: cweyl, fedora-package-review, johan-fedora, notting
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-10-23 17:43:12 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449, 454442, 456144    

Description Steven Pritchard 2008-07-09 14:28:56 EDT
Spec URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Mail-ClamAV/perl-Mail-ClamAV.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Mail-ClamAV-0.22-1.src.rpm
Clam AntiVirus is an anti-virus toolkit for UNIX http://www.clamav.com/.
This module provide a simple interface to its C API.
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2008-08-10 16:18:51 EDT
This is standard Perl module, but a couple of things bother me.

If you visit the upstream URL, you can't see version 0.22, just 0.13.  If you search for ClamAV on CPAN you'll see a link to 0.22, but clicking there gets you a page with a big red "UNAUTHORIZED" warning.  What's that about?

When running the tests, I see the following:
        (in cleanup) panic: free from wrong pool.
which is kind of troubling.

I see no problems with the packaging, but I'm reluctant to approve this without some discussion of those two issues.

* source files match upstream:
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   perl(Mail::ClamAV) = 0.22
   perl-Mail-ClamAV = 0.22-1.fc10
   perl-Mail-ClamAV(x86-64) = 0.22-1.fc10
   perl >= 0:5.006001
   perl(Inline) >= 0.44

* %check is present and all tests pass:
   All tests successful.
   Files=1, Tests=10,  2 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr  0.00 sys +  1.58 cusr  0.12 
    csys =  1.71 CPU)
  (discounting the weird panic at the end)
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* 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 -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
Comment 2 Jason Tibbitts 2008-10-01 12:13:33 EDT
Any response to my review commentary?
Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2008-10-23 17:43:12 EDT
Well, its been three more weeks.  I guess I'll close this.