Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-Data-Accessor - CPAN module aids OO development for perl classes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211737 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-25 00:16 EST ------- Ok, so maybe it's just my machine is a little grumpy with me for upgrading to fc6, but with that source0 line spectool actually fetched a _symlink_. Filed at bug 212108. Usually when there's both a Build.PL and Makefile.PL, Build.PL is the preferred mechanism to build the module. Not a blocker, however (and Makefile.PL is pretty much jsut a shell to Build.PL in this case anyways). The spec is missing perl(Test::Pod) as a br for one of the tests... Add this and the package is be approved. + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license field matches the actual license (Build.PL) + license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. + source files match upstream: ebd99741ed0d65e95724ee72dae56bbe Class-Data-Accessor-0.03.tar.gz ebd99741ed0d65e95724ee72dae56bbe Class-Data-Accessor-0.03.tar.gz.srpm + latest version is being packaged. X BuildRequires are proper. + rpmlint is silent. + final provides and requires are sane: ** perl-Class-Data-Accessor-0.03-1.fc5.noarch.rpm == rpmlint == provides perl(Class::Data::Accessor) = 0.03 perl-Class-Data-Accessor = 0.03-1.fc5 == requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(strict) perl(vars) + no shared libraries are present. + package is not relocatable. + owns the directories it creates. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + %clean is present. + %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=21, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.18 cusr + 0.09 csys = 0.27 CPU) + 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. + no headers. + no pkgconfig files. + no libtool .la droppings. + not a GUI app. + not a web app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review