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=579389 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2010-04-05 16:15:57 EDT --- Review: perl-HTTP-Parser-XS Date: April 5th 2010 Mock Build: F14 x86_64 okay. * PASS: rpmlint output $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/perl-HTTP-Parser-XS-* SPECS/perl-HTTP-Parser-XS.spec SRPMS/perl-HTTP-Parser-XS-0.07-1.fc13.src.rpm perl-HTTP-Parser-XS-tests.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. * PASS: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. yes perl * PASS: spec file name same as base package %{name}. yes perl * PASS: Packaging Guidelines. * PASS: Approved license in .spec file. perl * PASS: License on Source code. The README is clear but META.yml contains license: ~ maybe a note could be passed to upsteam. * PASS: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist. * PASS: Written in American English. * PASS: Spec file legible. * PASS: Included source must match upstream source. $ md5sum HTTP-Parser-XS-0.07.tar.gz ../SOURCES/HTTP-Parser-XS-0.07.tar.gz 890711d599f036fe613b3c8589000a10 HTTP-Parser-XS-0.07.tar.gz 890711d599f036fe613b3c8589000a10 ../SOURCES/HTTP-Parser-XS-0.07.tar.gz * PASS: Build on one architecture. mock build * PASS: Not building on an architecture must highlighted. mock build * PASS: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. mock build * PASS: Handle locales properly. None present * PASS: ldconfig must be called on shared libs. None present. * PASS: No bundled copies of system libraries. None present. * PASS: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable. Not relocatable. * PASS: A package must own all directories that it creates Yes. * PASS: No duplicate files in %files listings. None * PASS: Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr * PASS: %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). * PASS: Each package must consistently use macros. * PASS: The package must contain code, or permissable content. * PASS: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. None present. * PASS: %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. * PASS: Header files must be in a -devel package. none present. * PASS: Static libraries must be in a -static package. none present. * PASS: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' none present. * PASS: devel packages must require the exact base package * PASS: No .la libtool archives * PASS: GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file None * PASS: No files or directories already owned by other packages. None * PASS: %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). * PASS: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Comments: 1) Presumably the "tests" subpackage could be noarch. Only makes sense to fix if it can be done in a generic way of course. 2) The license is clear in the README but the META.yml contains license: ~ maybe a note upstream asking them to fix would be good. 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