Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 - Low-Level Interface to bzip2 compression library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232702 ------- Additional Comments From andreas@xxxxxxxxx 2007-03-17 15:14 EST ------- + source files match upstream: ebe26a1ca9aae874eada7636cf779d33 Compress-Raw-Bzip2-2.004.tar.gz + package meets naming and versioning guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license field matches the actual license. + license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. + license is "GPL or Artistic". + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are being used. + %clean is present. + package installs properly + debuginfo package contains data. + rpmlint is silent. + final provides and requires are sane: == provides Bzip2.so()(64bit) perl(Compress::Raw::Bunzip2) perl(Compress::Raw::Bzip2) perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 = 2.004-1.fc7 == requires libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) perl >= 0:5.004 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(AutoLoader) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(bytes) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) - %check is present and all supported tests pass. However, Test::POD would be useful as a BR t/000prereq....ok t/01bzip2......ok t/99pod........skipped all skipped: Test::Pod 1.00 required for testing POD All tests successful, 1 test skipped. Files=3, Tests=158, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.27 cusr + 0.05 csys = 0.32 CPU) + no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. + no duplication of system libraries. + owns the directories it creates. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets present. + code, not content. + documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. + %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. + no headers. + no pkgconfig files. + no libtool .la droppings. + not a GUI app. MUST and SHOULD parts do look okay. I would suggest however adding a BuildRequire for perl(Test::POD). That way you can prevent the skipping of the third test. Otherwise you can consider that package approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review