[Bug 233741] Review Request: perl-Math-Derivative - Numeric 1st and 2nd order differentiation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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-Math-Derivative - Numeric 1st and 2nd order differentiation
Alias: perl-Math-Derivative

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233741





------- Additional Comments From cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  2007-03-25 20:48 EST -------
Note, module is only licensed via a note in README.  You may want to bug
upstream about adding actual "this is licensed under..." text into
Derivitave.pm itself.

Also, this package needs a buildrequires on perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker), what
with the perl/perl-devel split for F7.  Add this and I'll approve the package.

+ source files match upstream:
359b1b4b545c03f4147594fc64420a2  Math-Derivative-0.01.tar.gz
a359b1b4b545c03f4147594fc64420a2  ../Math-Derivative-0.01.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.
+ latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are proper.
+ compiler flags are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
+package installs properly
+noarch package, no debuginfo subpackage
+ rpmlint is silent.
+ final provides and requires are sane:
 ** perl-Math-Derivative-0.01-1.fc6.noarch.rpm
 == rpmlint
 == provides
 perl(Math::Derivative)  
 perl-Math-Derivative = 0.01-1.fc6
 == requires
 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)  
 perl(Exporter)  
 perl(strict) 
O %check is present -- no tests defined
 No tests defined for Math::Derivative extension.
+ 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 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.

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]