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-Moose-Policy - Moose-mounted police https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214266 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-11-13 12:12 EST ------- I know that's what the documentation says, but the %description is a bit suboptimal. How about "Specify project-wide or site-wide Moose meta-policy"? Not that it makes much more sense, but it at least describes what the module does instead of making it sound as if the software joins your computer to the RCMP computing facilities or something. But I'll leave that up to you. * source files match upstream: 11b2e835e4b97563c4e459475bf9df90 Moose-Policy-0.02.tar.gz * 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. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Moose::Policy) = 0.02 perl(Moose::Policy::FollowPBP) perl(Moose::Policy::FollowPBP::Attribute) perl(Moose::Policy::JavaAccessors) perl(Moose::Policy::JavaAccessors::Attribute) perl(Moose::Policy::SingleInheritence) perl(Moose::Policy::SingleInheritence::MetaClass) perl-Moose-Policy = 0.02-1.fc7 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Moose) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=9, Tests=95, 2 wallclock secs ( 2.04 cusr + 0.20 csys = 2.24 CPU) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * 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. APPROVED -- 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