[Bug 504641] Review Request: sendxmpp - A perl script to send xmpp messages

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504641


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-07-03 16:43:47 EDT ---
This is somewhat trivial; nobody's looked at it in a while so I'll tale a look.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:             
   10e0a8d03f504f93ee4b9178c86f1882ac718e76d427602b1f9e10653cde0dde
   sendxmpp-0.0.8.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 (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   sendxmpp = 0.0.8-2.fc12
  =
   /usr/bin/perl
   perl(Getopt::Long)
   perl(Net::XMPP)
   perl(strict)

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I don't really have a way to
  test this since I don't use jabber.
* 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

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.