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-Object-InsideOut https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197459 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-03 16:26 EST ------- Your URL points to Class-InsideOut, not Object-InsideOut. perl(attributes) and perl(overload) are part of base Perl. Generally I won't see a BR: for a module that is part of base Perl as a blocker, but these are pragmas. What's next, perl(strict) and perl(warnings)? Is there really a reason for you to include these? 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 not included upstream. * source files match upstream: cde46297b346e329996b0cd40e9b81df Object-InsideOut-1.45.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. X BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Object::InsideOut) = 1.45 perl(Object::InsideOut::Exception) = 1.45 perl(Object::InsideOut::Results) = 1.45 perl(Object::InsideOut::Util) = 1.45 perl-Object-InsideOut = 1.45-0.fc6 = perl >= 0:5.006 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(B) perl(Exception::Class) perl(Object::InsideOut) >= 1.45 perl(Object::InsideOut::Exception) >= 1.45 perl(Object::InsideOut::Util) >= 1.45 perl(Scalar::Util) >= 1.10 perl(strict) perl(warnings) * 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=32, Tests=541, 2 wallclock secs ( 1.98 cusr + 0.54 csys = 2.52 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. -- 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