[Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Feb 15 05:41:08 UTC 2007
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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627
panemade at gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-15 00:41 EST -------
Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM.
+ source files match upstream url
02a3c8b947d3f2888bc2455f7405f7c1 Acme-Damn-0.03.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc is present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Dose owns the directories it creates.
+ no scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ make test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0,
'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t
t/1compile....ok
t/2damn.......ok
t/3aliases....ok
t/4name.......ok
t/5bad........ok
All tests successful.
Files=5, Tests=75, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.21 cusr + 0.05 csys = 0.26 CPU)
+Provides: Damn.so perl(Acme::Damn) = 0.03
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