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=511094 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 17:11:36 EDT --- Package builds fine and rpmlint is silent. I would suggest a tweaked %description either without a reference to missing sample output, or with the correct link included. It's a minor thing, so you can fix it up when you check in. * source files match upstream: sha256sum: 9c51d023ccc9709486e0aefe21822d6e02b5feb92ac2b7f886f4a17b91c69f95 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X description could use some minor tweaks. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. Note! %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) is preferred over the one used in the spec file. 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(App::Prove::Plugin::HTML) = 0.07 perl(TAP::Formatter::HTML) = 0.07 perl(TAP::Formatter::HTML::Session) = 0.05 perl-TAP-Formatter-HTML = 0.07-1.fc11 --- perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(File::Spec::Functions) perl(File::Temp) perl(IO::File) perl(POSIX) perl(TAP::Formatter::HTML::Session) perl(TAP::Parser) >= 3.10 perl(Template) perl(Template) >= 2.14 perl(URI) perl(URI) >= 1.35 perl(accessors) perl(accessors) >= 0.02 perl(base) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %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