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=575493 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-03 00:44:01 EDT --- + source files match upstream. d8e2ae6a0685d52641b3a5de20ae4116 Hash-MultiValue-0.08.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. GPL+ or Artistic + license is open source-compatible. + license text not included upstream. + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. + package builds in mock http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2092345 + package installs properly. + rpmlint has acceptable complaints: perl-Hash-MultiValue-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane: perl(Hash::MultiValue) = 0.08 perl-Hash-MultiValue = 0.08-1.fc14 = perl >= 0:5.008_001 perl(Carp) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(strict) + %check is present and all tests pass. t/00_compile.t .. ok t/from_mixed.t .. ok t/hash.t ........ ok t/multi.t ....... ok t/ref.t ......... skipped: No UNIVERSAL::ref t/write.t ....... ok All tests successful. Files=6, Tests=42, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.02 sys + 0.17 cusr 0.02 csys = 0.23 CPU) Result: PASS + no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. + 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. I don't see a review for perl-UNIVERSAL-ref yet - but I assume it's somewhere in the pipeline. 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review