Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-NTLM.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-NTLM-1.05-1.fc15.src.rpm Koji scratch build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2922330 Description: This module provides methods to use NTLM authentication. It can be used as an authenticate method with the Mail::IMAPClient module to perform the challenge/response mechanism for NTLM connections or it can be used on its own for NTLM authentication with other protocols (eg. HTTP).
[nb@desktop SPECS]$ rpmlint perl-NTLM.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [nb@desktop SRPMS]$ rpmlint perl-NTLM-1.05-1.fc15.src.rpm perl-NTLM.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US IMAPClient -> Impatient perl-NTLM.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> eh, e, g 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [nb@desktop noarch]$ rpmlint perl-NTLM-1.05-1.fc16.noarch.rpm perl-NTLM.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US IMAPClient -> Impatient perl-NTLM.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> eh, e, g 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. The spelling errors are not errors.
General observations: * use a macro for the version in the SOURCE0 line * you don't need to explicitly Require perl(Digest::HMAC_MD5) * please BR: perl(Test::Pod) to enable the test (not a blocker though) * thanks for working with upstream to get the license clarified. However, we now have a package that's (dual) licensed under the GPL, but does not ship with a copy of the GPL. I'm not sure what needs to happen here, so am requesting guidance from legal list. At the very least, please add the file that contains that email to the %docs line, since it's considered part of the license now. Also, unless you're planning to build this for EL5, you don't need: * the BuildRoot: line * the %clean section * to clean the buildroot in the %install section. Otherwise, all good! Hopefully, we'll get something definitive on the license question pretty quickly. - = N/A / = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [/] Rpmlint output is clean: $ rpmlint SPECS/perl-NTLM.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/perl-NTLM-1.05-1.fc14.src.rpm perl-NTLM.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US IMAPClient -> Clientship, Clientage, Clientele perl-NTLM.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> Eg, eh, e 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/perl-NTLM-1.05-1.fc14.noarch.rpm perl-NTLM.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US IMAPClient -> Clientship, Clientage, Clientele perl-NTLM.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> Eg, eh, e 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific items [/] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [/] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPL+ or artistic [!] 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. * see above [/] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. $ md5sum SOURCES/NTLM-1.05.tar.gz 5d148e88d96785d996bdd8e1517b9d8c SOURCES/NTLM-1.05.tar.gz $ md5sum ~/Download/NTLM-1.05.tar.gz 5d148e88d96785d996bdd8e1517b9d8c /home/rlandmann/Download/NTLM-1.05.tar.gz [/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2922596 [/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [/] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. * yes, but see general comments above [-] The spec file handles locales properly (with the %find_lang macro) [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [/] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [/] Package is not relocatable. [/] Package must own all directories that it creates. [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [/] Permissions on files are set properly [/] %files section includes a %defattr(...) line [!] Package consistently uses macros. * please fix SOURCE0 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] -devel packages require base package with full versioning. [/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [/] Filenames are valid UTF-8
Question on legal list: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-March/001578.html
Updated. Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-NTLM.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-NTLM-1.05-2.fc15.src.rpm
Thanks Nick -- looks good now. Spot's response on legal list boils down to: * please ask upstream to include a copy of the GPL in source * if they don't want to do that, send them a copy of the GPLv1 and ask them if it's OK for you to include that file in the version of the module shipped in Fedora. * if they don't want to include it themselves and don't want you to include it, refer back to legal-list. Full text here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-March/001584.html Cheers Rudi
Sorry Nick; I've done a bit more digging and conclude that I've been a bit too paranoid here. It turns out, however, that although you don't need to explicitly Require perl(Digest::HMAC_MD5), you *do* need to BR: it. If you fix that, I'm happy to approve the package.
Updated. Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-NTLM.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-NTLM-1.05-3.fc15.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2942434
OK: all good now. Many thanks, and sorry again for the delay. ACCEPT
Unblocking FE-Legal -- the way this module is packaged is consistent with common packaging practice
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-NTLM Short Description: perl module for NTLM authentication Owners: nb Branches: f13 f14 f15 el4 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).