Bug 431217 - Review Request: perl-Tk-FileDialog - File dialog for Perl Tk
Review Request: perl-Tk-FileDialog - File dialog for Perl Tk
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jason Tibbitts
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-02-01 10:36 EST by Dan Horák
Modified: 2008-02-17 04:48 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-02-17 04:48:46 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
tibbs: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Dan Horák 2008-02-01 10:36:14 EST
SRPM URL: http://sharkcz.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Tk-FileDialog-1.3-1.fc8.src.rpm
Spec URL: http://sharkcz.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Tk-FileDialog.spec

Tk::FileDialog is a perl5 package which implements a File Selector
widget.  To use Tk::FileDialog, you will need Perl version 5.002
or better, and Tk
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2008-02-01 13:39:58 EST
This one builds.  rpmlint says:
  perl-Tk-FileDialog.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic
  perl-Tk-FileDialog.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL
Please use the license tag "GPL+ or Artistic" for Perl modules distributed
"under the same terms as Perl itself".  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

Wow, the upstream source hasn't been updated in twelve years.  Are you sure this
is a good idea?

You might consider removing that comment after the BuildArch: line; comments
from the templates aren't generally useful in the actual packages.

Really, the only blocker I see is the License: tag, which you can fix up when
you check in.

* source files match upstream:
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X 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 (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
X rpmlint has a valid complaint.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   perl(Tk::FileDialog) = 1.3
   perl-Tk-FileDialog = 1.3-1.fc9
   perl >= 0:5.002

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* 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 -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

APPROVED, just fix up the License: tag to "GPL+ or Artistic".
Comment 2 Dan Horák 2008-02-17 04:48:46 EST
see #413215, but in the final state of webinject package development this was
not required anymore

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