[Bug 192475] Review Request: perl-PadWalker - Play with other peoples' lexical variables

[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-PadWalker -  Play with other peoples' lexical variables


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192475


tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2006-05-20 16:42 EST -------
* 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.  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:
   05d684ce2f17ef4f058ec2e912b5f95c  PadWalker-1.0.tar.gz
   05d684ce2f17ef4f058ec2e912b5f95c  PadWalker-1.0.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:
   PadWalker.so()(64bit)
   perl(PadWalker) = 1.0
   perl-PadWalker = 1.0-1.fc6
  -
   libc.so.6()(64bit)
   libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
   perl >= 0:5.008
   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
   perl(DynaLoader)
   perl(Exporter)
   perl(strict)
   perl(vars)
   rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
   rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
   rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
* shared libraries are present, but internal to Perl so no need to call ldconfig.
* 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=9, Tests=65,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.11 cusr +  0.07 csys =  0.18 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]