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-Mail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201477 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-08-06 12:46 EST ------- SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-DateTime-Format-Mail-0.30-2.fc5.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-DateTime-Format-Mail.spec (In reply to comment #1) > A blocker: > > - For t/pod99.t missing BuildRequires: perl(File::Find::Rule) Addressed above. > 4 remarks: > - no need to > mv LICENCE LICENSE > it is the spec file that must be american english Agreed, but easier to find this way, I think (particularly in an automated fashion). > - in the man page there is a reference to t/invalid and > t/sample_dates, so it may be relevant to package t/ in > %doc Point well taken; added to %doc > - I have the habit to add a trailing / to directories in %files > for example notes could be notes/ Appears directory ownership is maintained properly with this in %doc; changed. > - it may be relevant to contact the upstream about version > strings, and try to convince him to have version strings in ascii > ascending order (relevant for other DateTime modules) I'll drop them a note. The version being filtered here is pretty old, so it might not even be relevant in most cases anymore. > Otherwise [...snip...] > If you fix (or explain) the BuildRequires I'll approve Updated above! :) -- 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