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-Business-CreditCard - Validate/generate credit card checksums/names https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=244947 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-09-25 00:56 EST ------- When using cpanspec, you need to look over the generated specfile and specifically the License: tag and fill it in with the appropriate value based on what the license statements you find in the code and documentation. In this case, the documentation seems silent, but the code (CreditCard.pm, near the top) says: # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or # modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. So the License: tag should contain "GPL+ or Artistic". The license tag issue lears to the only rpmlint complaints: perl-Business-CreditCard.noarch: W: invalid-license CHECK perl-Business-CreditCard.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL perl-Business-CreditCard.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic That's the only issue I see, so just fix up the License: tag and I'll approve this package. * source files match upstream: 1a052afd178419057dff025b8ea3ad003ab110bce270359d3af70ad18664e055 Business-CreditCard-0.30.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field is not correct. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly X rpmlint has valid complaints * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Business::CreditCard) = 0.30 perl-Business-CreditCard = 0.30-3.fc8 = perl >= 1:5 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Exporter) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: ok 1 ok 2 * 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/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review