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=490578 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-09 00:16:07 EDT --- - source files match upstream. I can't verify - this looks like a manual tar of a local tree complete with entire .git directory. Would be better to use git-archive and add a comment with the exact command(s) used to recreate it + 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 (GPL+ or Artistic). + license is open source-compatible. + license text not included upstream. + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. + package builds in mock (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1286552). + package installs properly. + debuginfo package looks complete. + rpmlint has no complaints: mod_perlite.src: I: checking mod_perlite.x86_64: I: checking mod_perlite-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane: config(mod_perlite) = 0.09-0.1.git20090314.fc11 mod_perlite.so()(64bit) perl(Perlite) perl(Perlite::ConfigData) perl(Perlite::IO) mod_perlite = 0.09-0.1.git20090314.fc11 mod_perlite(x86-64) = 0.09-0.1.git20090314.fc11 = config(mod_perlite) = 0.09-0.1.git20090314.fc11 httpd-mmn = 20051115 ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libnsl.so.1()(64bit) libperl.so()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(:WITH_PERLIO) perl(strict) perl(warnings) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) + %check is present and all tests pass. + no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. + 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. APPROVED assuming you'll make Source0 a little cleaner. -- 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