Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 497686
Review Request: perl-Archive-RPM - Work with an RPM
Last modified: 2009-05-01 23:51:56 EDT
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Archive-RPM.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Archive-RPM-0.04-1.fc10.src.rpm
Archive::RPM provides a more complete method of accessing an RPM's meta-
and actual data. We access this information by leveraging RPM2 where we
can, and by "exploding" the rpm with rpm2cpio and cpio when we need
information we can't get through RPM2.
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1321073
+ 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
+ package installs properly.
+ rpmlint has no complaints:
perl-Archive-RPM.noarch: I: checking
perl-Archive-RPM.src: I: checking
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ final provides and requires are sane:
perl(Archive::RPM) = 0.04
perl(Archive::RPM::ChangeLogEntry) = 0.04
perl-Archive-RPM = 0.04-1.fc12
perl(RPM2) >= 0.67
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
+ %check is present and all tests pass.
t/00-load.t ........... ok
t/100-archive-rpm.t ... ok
t/101-archive-srpm.t .. ok
t/102-changelog.t ..... ok
All tests successful.
Files=4, Tests=28, 5 wallclock secs ( 0.05 usr 0.01 sys + 4.67 cusr 0.49 csys = 5.22 CPU)
+ 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 generically named files
+ code, not content.
+ documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
+ %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: perl-Archive-RPM
Short Description: Work with an RPM
Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 devel
Thanks for the review! :-)