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=489676 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-15 17:51:01 EDT --- Thanks. It boulds now, and looks OK except for one problem: The dependency on XML::Parser is doubled. rpm finds an unversioned dependency by itself, but the spec has a manual versioned one. All supported Fedora releases shipped with XML::Parser 2.36 or later, so there shouldn't be a need for a explicit versioned dependency and you should be able to just drop it. However, if you really want to keep it, you'll need to filter the automatic one. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 00335c6817f7a76c034183b4fc25effae7f00ba0d8ac86ab418f60d2cce4d224 XML-Simple-DTDReader-0.04.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(XML::Simple::DTDReader) = 0.04 perl-XML-Simple-DTDReader = 0.04-2.fc11 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(Carp) perl(Cwd) perl(Data::Dumper) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Basename) X perl(XML::Parser) perl(XML::Parser) >= 2.28 perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=20, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.03 usr 0.00 sys + 0.17 cusr 0.03 csys = 0.23 CPU) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- 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