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-Data-HexDump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187314 paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-03-30 06:40 EST ------- Review: - rpmlint clean - package and spec naming OK - package meets guidelines - license is same as perl, matches spec - spec file written in English and is legible - sources match upstream - package builds OK on FC5 (i386) and in mock for rawhide (i386) - BR's OK - no locales, libraries, subpackages, or pkgconfigs to worry about - not relocatable - no directory ownership or permissions problems - no completely duplicate files - %clean section present and correct - code, not context - no large docs - docs don't affect runtime - no desktop file needed - hexdump.pl appears to function correctly - no scriptlets Needswork: - macro usage inconsistent: use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} but not both in the same spec Suggestions: - It is not necessary to generate and ship the COPYING and Artistic license texts; inclusion of license texts is only mandatory when upstream provide them. - Inclusion of hexdump as %doc is redundant since it's basically the same thing as %{_bindir}/hexdump.pl -- 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. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
