[Bug 495702] Review Request: perl-XXX - See Your Data in the Nude
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Apr 22 14:48:48 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495702
Iain Arnell <iarnell at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell <iarnell at gmail.com> 2009-04-22 10:48:47 EDT ---
+ source files match upstream.
a9c46c1499d0ceae91504fe5fbcaade3173ebdfe XXX-0.12.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.
GPL+ or Artistic
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ license text not included upstream.
+ latest version is being packaged.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ compiler flags are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
+ package builds in mock
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1314592
+ package installs properly.
+ rpmlint has no complaints:
perl-XXX.noarch: I: checking
perl-XXX.src: I: checking
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ final provides and requires are sane:
perl(XXX) = 0.12
perl-XXX = 0.12-2.fc12
=
perl >= 0:5.006001
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
perl(base)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
+ %check is present and all tests pass.
t/test.t .. ok
t/yyy.t ... ok
All tests successful.
Files=2, Tests=2, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr 0.00 sys + 0.04 cusr 0.02
csys = 0.07 CPU)
Result: PASS
+ no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
+ owns the directories it creates.
+ doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ no generically named files
+ code, not content.
+ documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
+ %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
APPROVED
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list