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-POE-Component-Child https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198013 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-08 00:19 EST ------- This package seems to be under the GPL only. The version in your changelog entry is a bit odd ("-0"), causing rpmlint indigestion: W: perl-POE-Component-Child incoherent-version-in-changelog -0 1.39-0.fc6 Review: * source files match upstream: 35827260ad62e9d1bcbf74ada943deb9 POE-Component-Child-1.39.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. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. O BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is not required) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint is silent. * noarch package, so no debuginfo. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(POE::Component::Child) = 1.39 perl-POE-Component-Child = 1.39-0.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Cwd) perl(POE) >= 0.29 perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: ok 19 - all tests successful * 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