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=675529 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-26 01:36:16 EST --- + source files match upstream. f9898f6aa5ef1cb7eddb3e9caba736b2 Test-CheckManifest-1.22.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. Artistic 2.0 (confirmed upstream at https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=65467) + 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=2868872 + package installs properly. + rpmlint has no meaningful complaints: perl-Test-CheckManifest.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distro -> distr, bistro, distr o perl-Test-CheckManifest.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distro -> distr, bistro, distr o perl-Test-CheckManifest.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distro -> distr, bistro, distr o perl-Test-CheckManifest.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distro -> distr, bistro, distr o 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane: perl(Test::CheckManifest) = 1.22 perl-Test-CheckManifest = 1.22-1.fc16 = perl(Carp) perl(Cwd) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Find) perl(File::Spec) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) perl(strict) perl(Test::Builder) perl(warnings) + %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/00_load.t .......... ok t/01_selftest.t ...... ok t/98_boilerplate.t ... ok t/99_pod.t ........... ok t/99_pod_coverage.t .. ok All tests successful. Files=5, Tests=15, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.03 usr 0.01 sys + 0.27 cusr 0.04 csys = 0.35 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. The extra sub-directory is indeed necessary for tests to pass (but is such a PITA that I wouldn't recommend actually BuildRequiring this for other packages). Description is incredibly weak. How about: This package checks whether the Manifest file matches the distro or not. To match a distro the Manifest has to name all files that come along with the distribution. 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