Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 202905
Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-HTTP
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:40 EST
SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Component-Server-HTTP-0.09-1.fc5.src.rpm
SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Component-Server-HTTP.spec
POE::Component::Server::HTTP (PoCo::HTTPD) is a framework for building
custom HTTP servers based on POE. It is loosely modeled on the ideas of
apache and the mod_perl/Apache module.
Man, I have to say I really wish the Perl people would take their licensing a
bit more seriously. This package says it's released under the same terms as
POE. POE says it's released under the same terms as Perl. Love the double
Thanks for the great comment about the POE::API::Peek requirement. The
remaining tests seem to run fine in mock and I'd expect them to be OK in the
* source files match upstream:
* 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 not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
perl(POE::Component::Server::HTTP) = 0.09
perl-POE-Component-Server-HTTP = 0.09-1.fc6
* %check is present and all tests pass:
All tests successful.
Files=3, Tests=26, 11 wallclock secs ( 0.45 cusr + 0.13 csys = 0.58 CPU)
* 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.
* 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.
+Import to CVS
+Add to owners.list
+Bump release, build for devel
+devel build succeeds
+Request branching (FC-5)
Thanks for the review! :)