Spec Name or Url: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-GSSAPI.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-GSSAPI-0.20-1.src.rpm Description: This module gives access to the routines of the GSSAPI library, as described in rfc2743 and rfc2744 and implemented by the Kerberos-1.2 distribution from MIT. Note: This perl module is a new requirement of Authen::SASL 2.10.
Update to 0.21. http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-GSSAPI-0.21-1.src.rpm
Package builds fine in mock (devel branch) and rpmlint is silent. Issues: BuildRequires: perl is not allowed. Why %{perl_vendorarch}/GSSAPI* instead of just %{perl_vendorarch}/GSSAPI ? Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and conforms to the Perl template. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. It's not included separately in the package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it. * source files match upstream: 91d5029a32302aa02414c9c8e3353cec IO-Interface-0.98.tar.gz 91d5029a32302aa02414c9c8e3353cec IO-Interface-0.98.tar.gz-srpm * package builds in mock. X BuildRequires: perl not permitted. * a shared library is present, but it is not in the library search path and there is no need to run ldconfig. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directory it creates. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. * does not own directories owned by other packages.
(In reply to comment #2) > Issues: > BuildRequires: perl is not allowed. Has been changed. Personally I like to include the perl BR (in the past it has been required; a lot of perl specfiles include it). > Why %{perl_vendorarch}/GSSAPI* instead of just %{perl_vendorarch}/GSSAPI ? Because I want to include the module file GSSAPI.pm and the directory GSSAPI. > > Review: > ... > * source files match upstream: > 91d5029a32302aa02414c9c8e3353cec IO-Interface-0.98.tar.gz > 91d5029a32302aa02414c9c8e3353cec IO-Interface-0.98.tar.gz-srpm Wrong digests - this is GSSAPI not IO-Interface. jpo
> Has been changed. Personally I like to include the perl BR (in the past it has > been required; a lot of perl specfiles include it). The steering committee has changed the requirement, so include it if you wish. > Wrong digests - this is GSSAPI not IO-Interface. Don't know how I messed that up; I must have cut from the wrong window. The actual checksums are: 2779227c30afa412415680da54b98a10 GSSAPI-0.21.tar.gz 2779227c30afa412415680da54b98a10 GSSAPI-0.21.tar.gz-srpm APPROVED
Thanks for the review. Built for FC-4, FC-5, and devel.
(In reply to comment #3) > Has been changed. Personally I like to include the perl BR (in the past it has > been required; a lot of perl specfiles include it). Hmm, a BR: perl is rather meaningless, but also doesn't hurt. If wanting to be pedantic, FE perl packages actually would BR: %{__perl} because they typically also Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) Note: This calls %{__perl} and will fail if __perl and the 'perl' program provided by the perl-rpm should ever diverge. Though this is rather unlikely to occur, it would hit should ever perl change its executable's name (/usr/bin/perl7, /usr/bin/perl5), or should the executable's directory ever change.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-GSSAPI New Branches: EL-4 EL-5
cvs done.