Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 454687
Review Request: perl-Mail-ClamAV - Perl extension for the clamav virus scanner
Last modified: 2008-10-26 23:29:00 EDT
Spec URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Mail-ClamAV/perl-Mail-ClamAV.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Mail-ClamAV-0.22-1.src.rpm
Clam AntiVirus is an anti-virus toolkit for UNIX http://www.clamav.com/.
This module provide a simple interface to its C API.
This is standard Perl module, but a couple of things bother me.
If you visit the upstream URL, you can't see version 0.22, just 0.13. If you search for ClamAV on CPAN you'll see a link to 0.22, but clicking there gets you a page with a big red "UNAUTHORIZED" warning. What's that about?
When running the tests, I see the following:
(in cleanup) panic: free from wrong pool.
which is kind of troubling.
I see no problems with the packaging, but I'm reluctant to approve this without some discussion of those two issues.
* 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.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
perl(Mail::ClamAV) = 0.22
perl-Mail-ClamAV = 0.22-1.fc10
perl-Mail-ClamAV(x86-64) = 0.22-1.fc10
perl >= 0:5.006001
perl(Inline) >= 0.44
* %check is present and all tests pass:
All tests successful.
Files=1, Tests=10, 2 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr 0.00 sys + 1.58 cusr 0.12
csys = 1.71 CPU)
(discounting the weird panic at the end)
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* 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.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
Any response to my review commentary?
Well, its been three more weeks. I guess I'll close this.