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: mytop - A top clone for MySQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426990
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-12-29 18:36 EST -------
Because you manually specify the DBI dependency, your final dependency list ends
up with a doubled entry for DBI. You'll need to either filter it or just remove
the manual one. Is there something specifically wrong with letting RPM figure
it out? All supported Fedora releases, and indeed even RH9 and probably older,
have a much more recent version of DBI than the one you require manually, so the
versioned requirement is pretty much pointless.
* source files match upstream:
b17c702598b10bb0ce2695f609122637c799eaaaec1afaa73246b048f07be9bd
mytop-1.6.tar.gz
* 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.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
X final provides and requires are sane:
mytop = 1.6-1.fc9
=
/usr/bin/perl
perl >= 0:5.005
perl(DBD::mysql) >= 1
X perl(DBI)
X perl(DBI) >= 1.13
perl(Getopt::Long)
perl(Socket)
perl(Term::ANSIColor)
perl(Term::ReadKey) >= 2.1
perl(Time::HiRes)
perl(strict)
perl(vars)
* %check is present and all tests pass:
ok 1
Not much there; I installed the built package on a mysql server and it ran
fine.
* 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.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.