Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 190135
Review Request: perl-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level hash/array DBM
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:31 EST
Spec URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/perl-DBM-Deep/perl-DBM-Deep.spec
SRPM URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/perl-DBM-Deep/perl-DBM-Deep-0.983-1.src.rpm
A unique flat-file database module, written in pure perl. True multi-level
hash/array support (unlike MLDBM, which is faked), hybrid OO / tie()
interface, cross-platform FTPable files, and quite fast. Can handle
millions of keys and unlimited hash levels without significant slow-down.
Written from the ground-up in pure perl -- this is NOT a wrapper around a
C-based DBM. Out-of-the-box compatibility with Unix, Mac OS X and Windows.
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and
* 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:
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, i386)
* rpmlint is silent.
O final provides and requires are sane. (DBM::Deep::_::Root is a bit weird, but
that's really what the package is called.)
* no shared libraries are present.
* 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.
* %clean is present.
* %check is present and all tests pass:
All tests successful.
Files=28, Tests=371, 15 wallclock secs (12.99 cusr + 1.02 csys = 14.01 CPU)
* 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.
Thx for the review, package has been built, closing as NEXTRELEASE.
It seems a new version came out today (0.99_01).
(In reply to comment #3)
> It seems a new version came out today (0.99_01).
This is a development release (note the underscore).
It should *never* be used as a stable release.
I've not seen the underscore convention before, but I do see the bug
"***DEVELOPER RELEASE***" at CPAN. The daily updated packages messages sent to
comp.lang.perl.announce unfortunately don't indicate development releases
(unless you're expected to intuit such from the underscore in the version, I guess).
This a CPAN convention: a package is considered 'unstable' or 'development' if
there is an underscore in the version number.