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=498838 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-03 23:27:25 EDT --- + source files match upstream. d159b8b99180599ecc618078c93f3501da8c1469 Any-Moose-0.07.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. GPL+ or Artistic + license is open source-compatible. + license text is included. + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. + package builds in mock http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1334395 + package installs properly. + rpmlint has no complaints: perl-Any-Moose.src: I: checking perl-Any-Moose.noarch: I: checking 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane: perl(Any::Moose) = 0.07 perl-Any-Moose = 0.07-1.fc12 = rpm -qp --requires perl-Any-Moose-0.07-1.fc12.noarch.rpm perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(Mouse) >= 0.20 perl(strict) perl(warnings) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 + %check is present and all tests pass. All tests successful. Files=13, Tests=49, 5 wallclock secs ( 0.09 usr 0.01 sys + 4.76 cusr 0.14 csys = 5.00 CPU) Result: 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. -- 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