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=503175 --- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-01 08:08:23 EDT --- Parag, can you please point out, where my spec file does not match with the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl guidelines? The following list compares https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl with my spec file where "NA" means that it doesn't applicate here and "--" that I'm missing it. The only thing, I'm really missing is %check, that's right. And that's solved in -2 now. [OK] License tag [OK] Directory Ownership [OK] Perl Requires and Provides [OK] Core modules as buildrequires [OK] Versioned MODULE_COMPAT_ Requires [NA] Filtering Requires: and Provides [OK] Manual Requires and Provides [OK] URL tag [--] Testing and Test Suites [NA] When to *not* test [NA] Conditionally enabling/disabling tests [OK] Makefile.PL vs Build.PL [NA] .h files in module packages Why should I use cpanspec if my spec file is valid and follows the policies? Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/perl-Crypt-GPG.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/perl-Crypt-GPG-1.63-2.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