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-Test-Prereq https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189081 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-22 23:35 EST ------- I'm assuming perl-Module-Info will be approved, so I'll go ahead and review this. * 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: 9acb4eb0737bb041e9ece8ad08e127c3 Test-Prereq-1.030.tar.gz 9acb4eb0737bb041e9ece8ad08e127c3 Test-Prereq-1.030.tar.gz-srpm * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, i386). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directory it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is present but necessarily disabled. * 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.