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-Text-Aspell - spell check interface for perl Alias: perl-Text-Aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235895 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-17 23:21 EST ------- I question the explicit dependency on the aspell package, as the resulting binary rpm has a versioned library dependency aspell provides. However, it does not appear to be a blocker. + source files match upstream: a456444cb3320634e218426273227cb4 Text-Aspell-0.07.tar.gz a456444cb3320634e218426273227cb4 ../Text-Aspell-0.07.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. (GPL or Artistic) License text not included upstream. + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. + package installs properly + debuginfo package looks complete. + rpmlint is silent. O final provides and requires are sane: ** perl-Text-Aspell-0.07-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm == rpmlint == provides Aspell.so()(64bit) perl(Text::Aspell) = 0.07 perl-Text-Aspell = 0.07-2.fc6 == requires aspell >= 0.50.1 libaspell.so.15()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(DynaLoader) perl(vars) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) ** perl-Text-Aspell-debuginfo-0.07-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm == rpmlint == provides Aspell.so.debug()(64bit) perl-Text-Aspell-debuginfo = 0.07-2.fc6 == requires + %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=19, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.19 cusr + 0.06 csys = 0.25 CPU) + 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. 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