https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091144 Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- rpmlint ======= perl-Parse-DMIDecode.x86_64: E: no-binary This is to be expected; the package is really noarch but has to be arch-specific because its dependency, dmidecode, is not available on all architectures. Review Checks ============= - rpmlint OK - package and spec file naming OK - package meets guidelines - license is ASL 2.0, OK for Fedora and matches upstream - upstream provides license file and it's packaged as %doc - spec file is legible and written in English - source matches upstream, including timestamp - package builds OK in mock for F-19 .. Rawhide and EPEL-6 .. EPEL-7 (i386 and x86_64) - package is "ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ia64", with explanation included - build dependencies somewhat over-specified - see below - no locale data, libraries, devel files to concern ourselves with - no bundled libraries - package is not intended to be relocatable - directory ownership and permissions OK - no duplicate files - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - no large docs to worry about - docs don't affect runtime - not a GUI app, no desktop file needed - filenames are all ASCII - no scriptlets or sub-packages Nits ==== perl(Cwd) and perl(File::Spec) are only needed by Makefile.PL, which you don't use, so there's no need to BuildRequire them. perl(Config) is not needed if AUTOMATED_TESTING is set at build time, which it is. perl(constant) is only used in the example code, so is not needed for the build. Build.PL asks for Test::Deep but it's not actually used. No blockers here. APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review