Bug 234787 (perl-Email-Reply) - Review Request: perl-Email-Reply - Reply to an email message
Summary: Review Request: perl-Email-Reply - Reply to an email message
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: perl-Email-Reply
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Bernard Johnson
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 234786 perl-Email-Abstract
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-04-01 23:12 UTC by Tom "spot" Callaway
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:12 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-06-14 19:05:40 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
bjohnson: fedora-review+
dennis: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2007-04-01 23:12:19 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/perl-Email-Reply.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/perl-Email-Reply-1.201-1.src.rpm
Description: 
This package provides a simple way to reply to email messages.

Note: BuildRequires: perl-Email-MIME-Creator (234786)

Comment 1 Tom "spot" Callaway 2007-04-01 23:24:05 UTC
...and BR: perl-Email-Abstract (234790)

Comment 3 Bernard Johnson 2007-05-04 03:33:45 UTC
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: FC-6 / i386
 [x] Rpmlint output: None
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: GPL or Artistic
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     MD5SUM this package    : ea39a4a73d0b8cc54a28d6e84327413e
     MD5SUM upstream package: ea39a4a73d0b8cc54a28d6e84327413e
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
     Arches excluded:
     Why:
 [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [-] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: FC-6 / i386
 [-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:
 [?] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.


=== Issues ===
1. Missing BRs perl(Email::Simple), perl(Email::Simple::Creator), perl(Email::Date)

=== Final Notes ===
1. Fix missing BRs post-import.


================
*** APPROVED ***
================

Comment 4 Tom "spot" Callaway 2007-05-04 14:02:18 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Email-Reply
Short Description: Reply to an email message
Owners: tcallawa
Branches: FC-5 FC-6
InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list

Comment 5 Dennis Gilmore 2007-05-05 15:54:05 UTC
cvs done

Comment 6 Bernard Johnson 2007-06-14 18:59:23 UTC
This package appears to have been successfully imported and built.  If there are
no further issues with this review, please close the review in accordance with
the Fedora Package Contributor Guide:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#head-b43ecb6816897576064ffea1121d8d08de01e350


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.