[Bug 190135] Review Request: perl-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level hash/array DBM

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Apr 28 02:12:39 UTC 2006


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: perl-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level hash/array DBM


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190135


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-04-27 22:12 EST -------
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and 
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  It's not included separately in the
package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it.
* source files match upstream:
   09ddd163183e983bf1085688d0b25b75  DBM-Deep-0.983.tar.gz
   09ddd163183e983bf1085688d0b25b75  DBM-Deep-0.983.tar.gz-srpm
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, i386)
* rpmlint is silent.
O final provides and requires are sane.  (DBM::Deep::_::Root is a bit weird, but
that's really what the package is called.)
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is present and all tests pass:
   All tests successful.
   Files=28, Tests=371, 15 wallclock secs (12.99 cusr +  1.02 csys = 14.01 CPU)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

APPROVED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list