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-Crypt-Primes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183889 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-13 09:48 EST ------- * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and conforms to the Perl template. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. It's not included separately in the package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it. * source files match upstream: 041947b9645142615d687b89cf2e1a7b Crypt-Primes-0.50.tar.gz 041947b9645142615d687b89cf2e1a7b Crypt-Primes-0.50.tar.gz-srpm * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns no directories (besides %doc) * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is present and all tests pass. * 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. 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. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
