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=605674 Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-25 10:10:18 EST --- I'll look at this for you. Initial quick comments: * Spelling error in %description: "to separate open() calls" should be "two separate open() calls" * Manual runtime dependency on perl(Test::More) is not needed; there's no reference to Test::More in the resulting package and I guess the reference to it in META.yml is probably an error * Manual runtime dependency on perl(version) is redundant as rpm's automatic dependency generator adds it anyway * A manual runtime dependency of perl(IO::File) could be added as the module requires this via a "use base qw( IO::File )" construct * As a matter of style, I personally prefer: %{perl_vendorlib}/IO/ %{_mandir}/man3/IO::InSitu.3pm* to: %{perl_vendorlib}/* %{_mandir}/man3/* as this makes it easier to tell what's included in the package from reading the spec file, and will help you spot if other modules are added to the package in a later upstream release, which may be worthy of a changelog mention.. However, this is not a blocker if you prefer the wildcard style. * The package provides perl(IO::File::SE) as there is a package of this name included in the InSitu.pm file; I think this provide needs filtering as the package is not in a file where perl would look for it if some other package needed it (there should be a separate perl-IO-File-SE package if that became necessary). You can find information on filtering provides at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering Regarding sponsorship, you need to demonstrate your understanding and application of the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. The usual way to do this is to point potential sponsors to mock reviews of other packages in the review queue that you've done, and/or other packages you've submitted for review. It's a little hard to tell from this submission as cpanspec produces pretty good specs automatically. Do you have any plans to submit further packages for review, and if so, would they be just perl modules or other things as well? -- 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