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-RRD-Simple https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197013 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-28 00:41 EST ------- Everything looks good with this tiny package; the only issue is that rpmlint doesn't like the license: W: perl-RRD-Simple invalid-license Apache Software License, Version 2.0 At this point we have no standard way to specify the version of a license, a deficiency which I hope to correct once the packaging committee gets going. What you have seems fine. BR: perl is redundant; perl is in the default buildroot. There's no need to pass %optflags for a noarch package. No blockers. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: 5a9a90877b4a99da15eac0eb52729773 RRD-Simple-1.39.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. O BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is redundant) * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). O rpmlint has only ignorable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(RRD::Simple) = 682 perl(RRD::Simple::_Colour) perl-RRD-Simple = 1.39-0.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Spec) perl(RRDs) perl(strict) perl(vars) * 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, 2 subtests skipped. Files=14, Tests=6440, 5 wallclock secs ( 4.69 cusr + 0.80 csys = 5.49 CPU) (skipped tests are not due to missing modules) * 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