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=511081 Rasmus Ory Nielsen <ron@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Rasmus Ory Nielsen <ron@xxxxxx> 2009-07-13 14:38:41 EDT --- Package builds fine and rpmlint is silent. * source files match upstream: sha256sum: 3a8db00f38148f3afadbe5330dc5490d9933f9cae137e842ec225a4d3adb2d9f * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. Note, %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) is preferred over the one used, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag * 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. * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(accessors) = 1.01 perl(accessors::chained) = 1.01 perl(accessors::classic) = 1.01 perl(accessors::ro) = 1.01 perl(accessors::rw) = 1.01 perl-accessors = 1.01-1.fc10 --- perl >= 0:5.006 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(base) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings::register) * %check is present and all tests pass. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs 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