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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 ------- Additional Comments From steve@xxxxxxxxx 2006-05-27 16:28 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Only one of the files (lib/OpenFrame/Argument/Blob.pm) seems to have a statement > of the license. I don't think that's enough to suggest the license for the > entire package. I've emailed the author (the one listed in that file anyway) for clarification. > I wonder about the need for these: > > Requires: perl(File::Type) >= 0.01 > Requires: perl(HTTP::Request) >= 0.01 > Requires: perl(IO::Null) >= 0.01 > > The versions are so low that they seem to have been put in as placeholders. RPM > should figure out all of these on its own. (It doesn't find HTTP::Request but > it does find other modules, all provided by perl-libwww-perl.) Fixed in -2. > t/02http_request....[OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response::OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response::dispatch] > no response available > at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Pipeline/Dispatch.pm line 74 > ok [...] > I'm not sure if the first is a mock artifact or a problem with the test suite. It happens when I'm not running under mock either. > t/98compile.........skipped > all skipped: - do not have File::Find::Rule installed [...] > The second is fixed up with the obvious BR:. Also fixed in -2. http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-OpenFrame-3.05-2.src.rpm -- 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