Spec URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Socket-Netlink-Route.spec SRPM URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Socket-Netlink-Route-0.03-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This module contains the low-level constants and structure handling functions required to use the NETLINK_ROUTE protocol of Linux's PF_NETLINK socket family. It is suggested to use the high-level object interface to this protocol instead; see IO::Socket::Netlink::Route. $ rpmlint ./perl-Socket-Netlink-Route* perl-Socket-Netlink-Route.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/perl-Socket-Netlink-Route-0.03/LICENSE 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. I opened an upstream bug about the incorrect FSF address: https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=71001
This package depends on perl-Socket-Netlink being approved first.
I found and fixed an error with my Provides filter which was overzealous. Spec URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Socket-Netlink-Route.spec SRPM URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Socket-Netlink-Route-0.03-2.fc16.src.rpm $ rpmlint ./perl-Socket-Netlink-Route* perl-Socket-Netlink-Route.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/perl-Socket-Netlink-Route-0.03/LICENSE 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
=== FORMAL REVIEW === -=N/A x=Check !=Problem, ?=Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Rpmlint output: perl-Socket-Netlink-Route.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/perl-Socket-Netlink-Route-0.03/LICENSE [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 including the Perl specific items [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 : ea9ca0658e0a3271d66a58d4fa5a30a8 /tmp/Socket-Netlink-Route-0.03.tar.gz [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: f15 x86_64 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] 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] Packages don't bundle copies of system librarie [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] 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 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 -static subpackage, if present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages with %{?_isa}, if present. [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Final requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.4) perl(Socket::Netlink) >= 0.03 perl(base) perl(Carp) perl(constant) perl(Exporter) perl(IO::Socket::Netlink) >= 0.03 perl(IO::Socket::Netlink::_Message) perl(IO::Socket::Netlink::Route::_Message) perl(Socket) perl(Socket::Netlink::Route) perl(Socket::Netlink::Route_const) [x] Final provides perl(Socket::Netlink::Route_const) = 0.03 perl(IO::Socket::Netlink::Route) = 0.03 perl(IO::Socket::Netlink::Route::_IfaddrMsg) perl(IO::Socket::Netlink::Route::_IfinfoMsg) perl(IO::Socket::Netlink::Route::_Message) perl(IO::Socket::Netlink::Route::_NdMsg) perl(IO::Socket::Netlink::Route::_RtMsg) perl(Socket::Netlink::Route) = 0.03 perl-Socket-Netlink-Route = 0.03-2.fc15.remi [x] Latest version is packaged. [-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [?] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: Koji N/A Tested on: mock fc15 i386 [x] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: i386 + x86_64 [x] Package functions as described. Tested with the provided examples [-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [-] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [x] %check is present and the tests pass Should: - for incorrect-fsf-address, please, add bug link in your spec - make %file more exclicite (I personally hate to wide joker) No blocker. Waiting for others packages to be approved.
Spec URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Socket-Netlink-Route.spec SRPM URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Socket-Netlink-Route-0.03-3.fc16.src.rpm (In reply to comment #3) > Should: > - for incorrect-fsf-address, please, add bug link in your spec Done. > - make %file more exclicite (I personally hate to wide joker) Fixed.
======== Approved ========
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Socket-Netlink-Route Short Description: Interface to Linux's NETLINK_ROUTE netlink socket protocol Owners: bochecha Branches: f16 el6 InitialCC: perl-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Anything happening in here? Have you built the package? Can this bug be closed?
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738589#c9 for why I'm keeping this bug open.
This package is in rawhide. Closing this bug in an effort to tidy the queue. If there are outstanding issues please open a bug against the package itself.