[Bug 191619] Review Request: perl-CSS-Tiny - Read/Write .css files with as little code as possible

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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-CSS-Tiny - Read/Write .css files with as little code as possible


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191619


tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2006-05-15 11:22 EST -------
Everything looks good; the only thing I question is the reason for including
test.css as %doc.  It seems a bit pointless to me, but I guess it doesn't hurt
anything.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text is included in the package.
* source files match upstream:
   66fac70597a4e6628f1875037d1d2a94  CSS-Tiny-1.11.tar.gz
   66fac70597a4e6628f1875037d1d2a94  CSS-Tiny-1.11.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=4, Tests=47,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.14 cusr +  0.06 csys =  0.20 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

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]