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-Class-Data-Accessor - Inheritable, overridable class and instance data accessor creation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240166 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-15 17:11 EST ------- I note that 0.04000 (for whatever reason) came out a few days before you submitted your review. It looks like the build process is a bit different in the new version, too. I can go ahead and run a quick review on this version but I can also review an updated version if you like. Note that CPAN says "GPL and Artistic" but the code itself says just "Artistic": This module is free software. It may be used, redistributed and/or modified under the terms of the Perl Artistic License (see http://www.perl.com/perl/misc/Artistic.html) You might as well go ahead and add BR: perl(Test::Spelling) so you can run all of the tests. Or am I looking at the new version? Yes, I'm in the wrong tree, sorry. The new version has more tests. * source files match upstream: package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. X latest version is being packaged. ? BuildRequires are proper (Test::Spelling is useful for the new vesion) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Class::Data::Accessor) = 0.03 perl-Class-Data-Accessor = 0.03-1.fc7 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=21, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.12 cusr + 0.04 csys = 0.16 CPU) * 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. -- 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