[Bug 197745] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-ICal

[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-DateTime-Format-ICal


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197745





------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2006-07-07 23:19 EST -------
Unfortunately three of your manual Requires: statements duplicate rpm's
autodependencies.

* source files match upstream:
   b0be692f3a84f2a7f73a39220ec69a52  DateTime-Format-ICal-0.08.tar.gz
* 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.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64, many dependencies added to my
local repo).
* rpmlint is silent.
* noarch package, so no debuginfo.
X final provides and requires are sane:
   perl(DateTime::Format::ICal) = 0.08
   perl-DateTime-Format-ICal = 0.08-1.fc6
  =
   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
X  perl(DateTime)
X  perl(DateTime) >= 0.17
X  perl(DateTime::Event::ICal)
X  perl(DateTime::Event::ICal) >= 0.03
   perl(DateTime::Set) >= 0.1
   perl(DateTime::Span)
   perl(DateTime::TimeZone) >= 0.22
X  perl(Params::Validate)
X  perl(Params::Validate) >= 0.59
   perl(strict)
   perl(vars)
* %check is present and all tests pass:
   All tests successful.
   Files=5, Tests=134, 11 wallclock secs (11.29 cusr +  0.19 csys = 11.48 CPU)
* 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.
* 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

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