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=498324 --- Comment #2 from Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-01 05:56:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Alright, here is the review. Nothing serious: Thank you very much for the review! > ! Please make the description span 80 columns evenly (as much as possible) Done. > ! The file Changes can be packaged as %doc Done. > ! There is no information about the license except at the end of the > lib/JSON/RPC/Common.pm file. Could you advise upstream for putting a COPYING > file into the tarball and adding headers that contain license information to > the source files? Yes, I've mailed upstream. The author replied that he'll have a look at this. > ! It looks like these BR's can be removed: > BuildRequires: perl(Moose) > BuildRequires: perl(namespace::clean) > The package builds fine without them. The other packages pull them in so they > don't cause any harm. I'll leave this up to you. Done, I've removed them. > * Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. I > don't think this package should own %{perl_vendorlib}/JSON/ . It should own > %{perl_vendorlib}/JSON/RPC instead. Ownership of %{perl_vendorlib}/JSON/ will > be satisfied by rpm's automatic dependency generation. Done. new package: Spec URL: http://chkr.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-JSON-RPC-Common.spec SRPM URL: http://chkr.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-JSON-RPC-Common-0.03-2.fc10.src.rpm -- 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