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=522777 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-23 01:38:46 EDT --- So this is just a rename review request? I'll do a quick runthrough. The Obsoletes: and Provides: needed to rename the package look correct according to the guidelines at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages. There are a couple of provides which look a bit odd. I think that for some bizarre reason the automatic dependency finder actually parses "package" statements in some verilog source (installed as documentation) as perl "package" statements, and so you end up with the bogus "perl(imp_test_pkg)" and "perl(mypackage)". That's pretty bad behavior from rpmbuild almost certainly worthy of a bug, but you'll still need to filter those dependencies. Unfortunately you can't use the general dependency filtering mechanism just introduced because this package is arch-specific. Perhaps the mechanism at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Filtering_Requires:_and_Provides will work for you. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: b3c4c852173beb2bad45f567e9d9e854f8e78150356da66476a3f232a6690f6f Verilog-Perl-3.213.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. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. ? final provides and requires: Parser.so()(64bit) Preproc.so()(64bit) perl(Verilog::EditFiles) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Getopt) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Language) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Netlist) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Netlist::Cell) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Netlist::File) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Netlist::File::Parser) perl(Verilog::Netlist::Interface) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Netlist::Logger) = 3.035 perl(Verilog::Netlist::Module) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Netlist::Net) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Netlist::Pin) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Netlist::Port) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Netlist::Subclass) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Parser) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Preproc) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::SigParser) = 3.213 perl(Verilog::Std) = 3.213 ? perl(imp_test_pkg) ? perl(mypackage) perl-Verilog = 3.213-1.fc12 perl-Verilog-Perl = 3.213-1.fc12 perl-Verilog-Perl(x86-64) = 3.213-1.fc12 = /usr/bin/perl libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) perl >= 0:5.000 perl >= 0:5.005 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(Carp) perl(Class::Struct) perl(Config) perl(Cwd) perl(DynaLoader) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Copy) perl(File::Path) perl(File::Spec) perl(FindBin) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(IO::Dir) perl(IO::File) perl(Pod::Usage) perl(Verilog::EditFiles) perl(Verilog::Getopt) perl(Verilog::Language) perl(Verilog::Netlist) perl(Verilog::Netlist::Cell) perl(Verilog::Netlist::File) perl(Verilog::Netlist::Interface) perl(Verilog::Netlist::Logger) perl(Verilog::Netlist::Module) perl(Verilog::Netlist::Net) perl(Verilog::Netlist::Pin) perl(Verilog::Netlist::Port) perl(Verilog::Netlist::Subclass) perl(Verilog::Parser) perl(Verilog::Preproc) perl(Verilog::Std) perl(base) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=26, Tests=354, 5 wallclock secs ( 0.22 usr 0.05 sys + 3.69 cusr 0.65 csys = 4.61 CPU) One test is skipped due to lack of commercial software. * 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 * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. 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