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-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level hash/array DBM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190135 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-27 22:12 EST ------- * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and * 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: 09ddd163183e983bf1085688d0b25b75 DBM-Deep-0.983.tar.gz 09ddd163183e983bf1085688d0b25b75 DBM-Deep-0.983.tar.gz-srpm * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, i386) * rpmlint is silent. O final provides and requires are sane. (DBM::Deep::_::Root is a bit weird, but that's really what the package is called.) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=28, Tests=371, 15 wallclock secs (12.99 cusr + 1.02 csys = 14.01 CPU) * 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review