[Bug 230802] Review Request: perl-Callback - Object interface for function callbacks

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Jun 3 23:57:08 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-Callback - Object interface for function callbacks
Alias: perl-Callback

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230802





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-06-03 19:57 EST -------
Usually we use "GPL or Artistic" to indicate the regular license of Perl
modules.  Looking through my CVS tree, I don't see any using a slash as you've
done, but I suppose it's not really incorrect.

I think you should have a build requirement on perl(Storable), so that you'll
still get complete test coverage in case it gets split out of the main perl package.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   8d430c74986862f4ea5e7121aaf40be72437fa2df5242c57671f35871a0d7a4d  
   Callback-1.07.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 (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   perl(Callback) = 1.07
   perl-Callback = 1.07-1.fc8
  =
   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
   perl(Exporter)
   perl(UNIVERSAL)
   perl(strict)
* %check is present and all tests pass:
   All tests successful.
   Files=4, Tests=19,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.09 cusr +  0.06 csys =  0.15 CPU)
* 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/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