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=675542 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-03 23:29:08 EST --- + source files match upstream. 07350a6b0813fbe88b8b48ef786dda98 Hash-MoreUtils-0.02.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=2883410 + package installs properly. + rpmlint has no meaningful complaints: perl-Hash-MoreUtils.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Util -> Til, U til, Utile perl-Hash-MoreUtils.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Util -> Til, U til, Utile 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane: perl(Hash::MoreUtils) = 0.02 perl-Hash-MoreUtils = 0.02-1.fc16 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) perl(Exporter) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) + %check is present and all tests pass. # Testing Hash::MoreUtils 0.02, Perl 5.012003, /usr/bin/perl t/00-load.t ....... ok t/01-hash.t ....... ok t/manifest.t ...... ok t/pod-coverage.t .. ok t/pod.t ........... ok All tests successful. Files=5, Tests=18, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.01 sys + 0.18 cusr 0.02 csys = 0.23 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. Despite disagreeing with you over t/manifest.t, it's your package and there's certainly nothing in the guidelines that says you mustn't jump through hoops to run "release" tests; just that you don't need to enable them. 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