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-Module-ScanDeps - Recursively scan Perl code for dependencies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190582 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-07 16:28 EST ------- The source URL seems wrong (or at least I can't fetch the upstream source from there). I could get it from: http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/S/SM/SMUELLER/Module-ScanDeps-0.59.tar.gz which I'll assume is the correct upstream. The module puts an executable with a .pl extension into bindir. I agree with Steve that this is a bit ugly but as far as I know it's not a blocker. (My own denyhosts package drops denyhosts.py into bindir so I can't really complain.) Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and follows the Perl specfile 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: 6e20e368ff101d8bc8f31eaa2d81c264 Module-ScanDeps-0.59.tar.gz 6e20e368ff101d8bc8f31eaa2d81c264 Module-ScanDeps-0.59.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * 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=1, Tests=20, 2 wallclock secs ( 2.38 cusr + 0.32 csys = 2.70 CPU) * no scriptlets present. * 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, but please double check the source URL and fix if necessary. -- 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