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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-01 07:34:01 EST --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Review checklist: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - rpmlint output mostly OK (see below) - package and spec file naming OK - package meets guidelines - license as same as Perl, spec matches actual license - no bundled license file to include - spec file written in English and is legible - sources match upstream (content and timestamp identical) - package builds OK in mock for Rawhide - build requirements OK - no locale data to worry about - no shared libraries to worry about - no bundled libraries to worry about - package makes no attempt to be relocatable (which is good) - directory ownership is fine - no duplicate files - macro usage is consistent - package is code, not content - no large docs to concern ourselves with - docs don't affect runtime - no header files to worry about - no static or other libraries to worry about - no subpackages created or needed - no libtool archives present - package is not a GUI app so does not need a desktop file - no non-ascii filenames - supplied test suite run in %check and passes in Rawhide - no scriptlets present or needed - no pkgconfig files to worry about -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rpmlint output: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- perl-IO-InSitu.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rw -> re, r, w perl-IO-InSitu.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rw -> re, r, w perl-IO-InSitu.src:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 17) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Spelling "errors" are to be expected. Mixed use of spaces and tabs can be trivially fixed by expanding the one tab in the spec. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- requires: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.2) perl(IO::File) rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 perl(base) perl(Carp) perl(File::Copy) perl(File::Temp) perl(strict) perl(version) perl(warnings) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 These are sane. The perl(base) requirement comes from "use base qw( IO::File )"; the manual perl(IO::File) dependency covers this. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- provides: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- perl(IO::InSitu) perl-IO-InSitu = 0.0.2-3.fc15 These are also reasonable but it would be better if the perl(IO::InSitu) provide was versioned. The reason that it isn't is that the current auto-provides script can't extract the version from this code: package IO::InSitu; use version; $VERSION = qv('0.0.2'); You'd have to write a custom provides script to fix that (I did one for perl-Mail-Mbox-MessageParser), but I wouldn't say that was a blocker. RPM itself may grow a better perl provides/requires checker once rpm 4.9 lands. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This package is good to go (assuming the tab in the spec is expanded). Now I just need convincing that you understand the Fedora Packaging Guidelines, and a small number of package pre-reviews should do the trick. -- 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