Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 193960
Review Request: perl-Net-LibIDN
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:34 EST
Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/perl-Net-LibIDN.spec
SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/perl-Net-LibIDN-0.08-5.src.rpm
Description: Provides perl bindings for GNU Libidn, a C library for handling Internationalized Domain Names according to IDNA (RFC 3490), in a way very much inspired by Turbo Fredriksson's PHP-IDN.
Packager needs a sponsor.
In order to get sponsored you must first understand that things are currently
organised in FE in such a way that once you are sponsored you get full CVS
access to all packages. Thus having one good package ready for review usually
isn't enough to get you sponsored.
There are 2 ways to proceed from here for us (the FE community) to get to learn
1) You review a couple of packages from others see FE-NEW for a list of
Review Requests that need a Reviewer, don't worry about not being competent
enough todo a review, just add me to the CC-list and I'll watch over your
2) Create some more packages and link to them from the BZ ticket.
Or (probably the best) a combination of these 2. What also helps is activity in
other Fedora projects such as translations etc.
Also it is a good idea to read the "howto become a contributer" "packaging
guidelines" and "review guidlines" wiki pages thoroughly first, if you had done
that you could have known that you had to make this bug blok FE_NEEDSPONSOR
More packages are in bug #194470, #194479 and #194481. I think more will follow,
when I've got time for this. And sorry, yes I forgot to block FE_NEEDSPONSOR for
this bug report.
Restoring some comments lost due to the BZ crash:
I suggested to Robert that we would work together to get 3 of his submission
into the approved state and that I would then sponsor him, he responded with:
------- Additional Comments From email@example.com 2006-06-11 12:44
Yes, that sounds well. BTW, I've got updated all four packages on June, 9th to
have a better rpmlint output. And as I'm new to the Fedora Extras stuff, just
contact me, if there's something...
For those reading allong I've sponsored Robert after reviewing -> approving 2 of
his other packages. Removing the NEEDSPONSOR blocker.
Builds fine in mock (x86_64, development) and rpmlint is silent.
Note that BuildRequires: perl is not necessary; it's already in the buildroot by
One odd thing about this package is that the documentation indicates that a copy
of the GPL should be in a "Copying" file, but one isn't included in the tarball.
(Who can understand why upstream does the things they do?) To avoid confusion,
you might want to run "perldoc -t perlgpl > Copying" at the end of %build and
then include the Copying file in %doc.
Your libidn >= 0.4.0 dependency is also redundant; rpm finds the libidn.so.11
dependency which will pull in libidn. A search does show that libidn.so.11 was
present at least back to libidn 0.3.7, but even FC3 shipped with 0.5.6 so
there's no chance of having an old version.
None of these are blockers. The first is a matter of taste and the latter two
would be good to fix but I'll leave it up to you.
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
* latest version is being packaged.
O BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is redundant)
* package builds in mock (x86_64, development).
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
perl(Net::LibIDN) = 0.08
perl-Net-LibIDN = 0.08-5.fc6
libidn >= 0.4.0
perl >= 0:5.006
* shared libraries are present, but internal to perl.
* 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:
+ exit 0
* no scriptlets 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.
11624 (perl-Net-LibIDN): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded.
11623 (perl-Net-LibIDN): Build on target fedora-5-extras succeeded.
11622 (perl-Net-LibIDN): Build on target fedora-4-extras succeeded.
as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors I'll close this
bug report with NEXTRELEASE now.