Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478364 --- Comment #3 from Brennan Ashton <bashton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-23 17:54:15 EDT --- [X]source files match upstream: 56d569e0258e6777f47c85410de58dbb ../SOURCES/Verilog-Readmem-0.02.tar.gz 56d569e0258e6777f47c85410de58dbb Verilog-Readmem-0.02.tar.gz [x]package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [x]specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. [x]dist tag is present. [x]license field matches the actual license. [x]license is open source-compatible. GPL+ or Artistic [FAIL]latest version is being packaged. There is now 0.04 [x]BuildRequires are proper. [x]compiler flags are appropriate. [x]%clean is present. [x]package builds in koji. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1148876 [x]package installs properly. [?]rpmlint is silent. rpmlint perl-Verilog-Readmem.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Verilog-Readmem-0.02-1.fc10.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Verilog-Readmem-0.02-1.fc10.noarch.rpm perl-Verilog-Readmem.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/perl-Verilog-Readmem-0.02/examples/ex1 perl-Verilog-Readmem.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/perl-Verilog-Readmem-0.02/examples/ex2 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. That is your call. [x]final provides and requires are sane: rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Verilog-Readmem-0.02-1.fc10.noarch.rpm perl(Verilog::Readmem) = 0.02 perl-Verilog-Readmem = 0.02-1.fc10 rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Verilog-Readmem-0.02-1.fc10.noarch.rpm perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(strict) perl(warnings) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 [x]%check is present and all tests pass: [x]owns the directories it creates. [x]doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [x]no duplicates in %files. [?]file permissions are appropriate. see rpmlint [x]no scriptlets present. [x]code, not content. [x]documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [x]%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [x]no headers. [x]no pkgconfig files. Consider upgrading to 0.04 and also confirm you want the example files like that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review