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=514883 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-04 19:41:20 EDT --- Thanks for the well-commented spec; I don't think I'd have understood what was going on with FileCache module without the comments. The way you're doing this makes sense to me. Lots of deprecation warnings from the test suite; I guess that's related to the FileCache thing. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 6ac9804279b68588d51cb3df2667f7f7e54571e32639d966f05e7d9406c2b2b1 Catalyst-Plugin-PageCache-0.22.tar.gz 9e3e8a177c61857491f5c20e26f79fcfaa3a6c53ca00d4bb4864aab0770b6b07 FileCache.pm * 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. * 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 (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Catalyst::Plugin::PageCache) = 0.22 perl-Catalyst-Plugin-PageCache = 0.22-1.fc12 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(Catalyst::Runtime) perl(Class::Accessor::Fast) perl(MRO::Compat) perl(base) perl(strict) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=16, Tests=130, 17 wallclock secs ( 0.08 usr 0.04 sys + 6.88 cusr 0.57 csys = 7.57 CPU) Result: PASS * 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 The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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