[Bug 240207] Review Request: perl-Class-Base - Useful base class for deriving other modules

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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-Class-Base - Useful base class for deriving other modules
Alias: perl-Class-Base

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240207


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-05-15 15:46 EST -------
Another clean package, as usual.

* source files match upstream:
   64fa385358889ec8b77fe7cbccb996fecf3ac1cb0ed566d6dc5e79f771392891  
   Class-Base-0.03.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* 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(Class::Base) = 0.03
   perl-Class-Base = 0.03-1.fc7
  =
   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
   perl(strict)

* %check is present and all tests pass, 93 tests passed, verified by inspection.
* 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.

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.