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=672764 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-26 23:59:11 EST --- + source files match upstream. 45094c4030d67701b1af513b06913ead JSON-PP-2.27104.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. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. + package builds in mock http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2744926 + package installs properly. + rpmlint has no complaints: 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane: perl(JSON::PP) = 2.27104 perl-JSON-PP = 2.27104-2.fc15 perl(JSON::PP::Boolean) perl(JSON::PP::IncrParser) = 1.01 = perl >= 0:5.005 perl(B) perl(base) perl(bytes) perl(Carp) perl(constant) perl(Exporter) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(JSON::PP) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) perl(overload) perl(strict) + %check is present and all tests pass. PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/000_load.t ............... ok t/001_utf8.t ............... ok t/002_error.t .............. ok t/003_types.t .............. ok t/006_pc_pretty.t .......... ok t/007_pc_esc.t ............. ok t/008_pc_base.t ............ ok t/009_pc_extra_number.t .... ok t/010_pc_keysort.t ......... ok t/011_pc_expo.t ............ ok t/012_blessed.t ............ ok t/013_limit.t .............. ok t/014_latin1.t ............. ok t/015_prefix.t ............. ok t/016_tied.t ............... ok t/017_relaxed.t ............ ok t/018_json_checker.t ....... ok t/019_incr.t ............... ok t/020_unknown.t ............ ok t/021_evans_bugrep.t ....... ok t/022_comment_at_eof.t ..... ok t/099_binary.t ............. ok t/104_sortby.t ............. ok t/105_esc_slash.t .......... ok t/106_allow_barekey.t ...... ok t/107_allow_singlequote.t .. ok t/108_decode.t ............. ok t/109_encode.t ............. ok t/110_bignum.t ............. ok t/112_upgrade.t ............ ok t/113_overloaded_eq.t ...... ok t/114_decode_prefix.t ...... ok t/115_tie_ixhash.t ......... ok t/900_pod.t ................ ok All tests successful. Files=34, Tests=3470, 4 wallclock secs ( 0.38 usr 0.05 sys + 4.00 cusr 0.14 csys = 4.57 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. To avoid implicit file conflicts, perl-JSON needs to be updated to 2.50 (with tweaks to the filtering to hide or provide JSON::backportPP) and this package should explicitly Conflicts: perl-JSON < 2.50. 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