[Bug 198023] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Logger
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jul 8 05:18:19 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-POE-Component-Logger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198023
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-07-08 01:09 EST -------
I was finishing up the review, so I'll include it below.
The lines are indeed superfluous and simply caused by following the specfile
template. I don't see them as blockers, or honestly even as bugs, although I'll
try to note them in the future.
* source files match upstream:
b36cfad2d2d446103cbcf671270681ff POE-Component-Logger-1.00.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
O BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is not required)
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64, approved dependencies added to
local repo)
* rpmlint is silent.
* noarch package, so no debuginfo.
* final provides and requires are sane:
perl(POE::Component::Logger) = 1.00
perl-POE-Component-Logger = 1.00-0.fc6
=
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
perl(Log::Dispatch::Config)
perl(POE)
perl(strict)
perl(vars)
* %check is present and all tests (all one of them) pass:
All tests successful.
Files=1, Tests=1, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.07 cusr + 0.03 csys = 0.10 CPU)
* 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.
* no scriptlets present.
* 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