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=579682 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-02 03:02:02 EDT --- + source files match upstream. 0add2a0132d582ad81d62b4e38fd3f92 version-0.80.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. version-0.82 is available - BuildRequires are proper. missing perl(Module::Build) + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. + package builds in mock (after adding missing BR) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2154593 + package installs properly. + rpmlint has no complaints: perl-version.src: I: checking perl-version.src: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/version/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-version.src: I: checking-url http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/J/JP/JPEACOCK/version-0.80.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) perl-version.x86_64: I: checking perl-version.x86_64: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/version/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-version-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking perl-version-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/version/ (timeout 10 seconds) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane: perl(version) = 0.80 perl(version::vxs) = 0.80 vxs.so()(64bit) perl-version = 0.80-1.fc14 perl-version(x86-64) = 0.80-1.fc14 = libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) perl >= 0:5.005_03 perl >= 0:5.005_04 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1) perl(strict) perl(vars) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 + %check is present and all tests pass. ./Build test t/01base.t ..... ok t/02derived.t .. ok t/03require.t .. ok All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=1382, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.15 usr 0.03 sys + 0.51 cusr 0.05 csys = 0.74 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. Looks good - just a couple of little points. You've commented out the BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build), but it's really necessary. There's a newer version-0.82 available now. And you should probably use %{?perl_default_filter} to avoid providing vxs.so. With those tweaks, 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