[Bug 330311] Review Request: perl-Class-Date - Class for easy date and time manipulation

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Oct 15 03:33:50 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-Class-Date - Class for easy date and time manipulation
Alias: perl-Class-Date

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=330311


cweyl at alumni.drew.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alias|                            |perl-Class-Date
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |cweyl at alumni.drew.edu
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu  2007-10-14 23:33 EST -------
Note that the first 5 lines are canonically done in %prep, not build.

This package needs to own all directories it creates under %{perl_vendorarch},
e.g.

 %{perl_vendorarch}/Class/Date.p*
 %{perl_vendorarch}/Class/Date

Should properly be

 %{perl_vendorarch}/*

in %files

Move prep content from %build to %prep, update %files, and I'll approve :)

+ source files match upstream:
 12f21e05e46d05fd0339f1c02b9b3318  Class-Date-1.1.9.tar.gz
 12f21e05e46d05fd0339f1c02b9b3318  Class-Date-1.1.9.tar.gz.srpm
+ package meets naming and versioning 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 in package.
+ latest version is being packaged.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ compiler flags are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
+ package builds in mock (7/x86_64).
+ package installs properly
+ debuginfo package looks complete.
+ rpmlint is silent.
+ final provides and requires are sane:
 ** perl-Class-Date-1.1.9-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm
 == rpmlint
 == provides
 Date.so()(64bit)
 perl(Class::Date) = 1.1.9
 perl(Class::Date::Const)
 perl(Class::Date::Invalid)
 perl(Class::Date::Rel)
 perl-Class-Date = 1.1.9-1.fc6
 == requires
 perl >= 0:5.005_03
 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
 perl(Carp)
 perl(Class::Date::Const)
 perl(DynaLoader)
 perl(Exporter)
 perl(Time::Local)
 perl(UNIVERSAL)
 perl(constant)
 perl(overload)
 perl(strict)
 perl(vars)
 ** perl-Class-Date-debuginfo-1.1.9-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm
 == rpmlint
 == provides
 Date.so.debug()(64bit)
 perl-Class-Date-debuginfo = 1.1.9-1.fc6
 == requires
+ %check is present and all tests pass:
All tests successful.
Files=5, Tests=175,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.25 cusr +  0.10 csys =  0.35 CPU)
+ no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
X 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.



-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list