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=620794 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-03 11:54:20 EDT --- + source files match upstream. 7fe268f24d30e1ca5f9f12da94d83fa1 PPIx-Utilities-1.000001.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 is included. + 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=2376972 + package installs properly. + rpmlint has no complaints. + final provides and requires are sane: perl(PPIx::Utilities) = 1.000001 perl(PPIx::Utilities::Exception::Bug) = 1.000001 perl(PPIx::Utilities::Node) = 1.000001 perl(PPIx::Utilities::Statement) = 1.000001 perl-PPIx-Utilities = 1.000001-2.fc15 = perl >= 0:5.006001 perl(base) perl(Exception::Class) perl(Exporter) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.1) perl(PPI) >= 1.208 perl(PPI::Document::Fragment) >= 1.208 perl(PPIx::Utilities::Exception::Bug) perl(Readonly) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(strict) perl(warnings) + %check is present and all tests pass. t/split-ppi-node-by-namespace.t .. ok All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=10, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr 0.01 sys + 0.17 cusr 0.02 csys = 0.21 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. Thanks for this one - I was about to start packaging it myself. 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