[Bug 239895] Review Request: perl-Math-Base85 - perl extension for base 85 numbers,

[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-Base85 - perl extension for base 85 numbers,
Alias: perl-Math-Base85

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239895





------- Additional Comments From cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  2007-05-14 16:24 EST -------
License tag should be "GPL or Artistic".

Perversely enough, this package does not need a br on perl(Test::More) *sigh*

There's a RFC included in the package.  Why not add it to %doc?

Update the license tag, drop the br on perl(Test::More), add the rfc to %doc
and I'll approve :)

+ source files match upstream:
 3a2914651dc680fd22661f35213211d3  Math-Base85-0.2.tar.gz
 3a2914651dc680fd22661f35213211d3  Math-Base85-0.2.tar.gz.srpm
+ 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 included in package.
+ latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are proper.
+ compiler flags are appropriate. (noarch)
+ %clean is present.
+ package installs properly
+ rpmlint is silent.
+ final provides and requires are sane:
 ** perl-Math-Base85-0.2-1.fc6.noarch.rpm
 == rpmlint
 == provides
 perl(Math::Base85) = 0.2
 perl-Math-Base85 = 0.2-1.fc6
 == requires
 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)  
 perl(Carp)  
 perl(Exporter)  
 perl(Math::BigInt)  
 perl(constant)  
 perl(strict)  
 perl(vars) 
+ %check is present and all tests 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 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]