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-Config-Std - Yet Another Way of Storing Configuration Files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=244948 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-09-25 01:23 EST ------- The most recent version still doesn't have a build dependency on Test::More, so all the tests fail and the package fails to build. Also, this package has the same issue with the license that perl-Business-CreditCard has. According to the documentation, License: should be "GPL+ or Artistic". Adding the necessary build dependency gets things building, although for complete test suite coverage you should also have build dependencies on perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) and perl(Test::Pod). I added the necessary bits so that I could do this review. rpmlint complains about the License: tag, and also perl-Config-Std.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.4-3 v0.0.4-3.fc8 Indeed, this package has ended up with a stray 'v' in the Version which comes from upstream. Frankly I've no idea why upstream would do a thing like that, but we want the Version: tag to be numeric in this case. So you'll need to remove the 'v' from Version: and, so that things still build, add that 'v' back to your Source0: and %setup lines. I know %description comes from the package itself (specifically the Description section of the documentation) but I would urge you to remove the needless semi-profanity. (Not that it offends me, but we're creating a distribution to be used by very many people.) * source files match upstream: 40b455d1971960514a0b87c58a4d1656207e03cd6d7a33dd3c068f97ad3ed5d5 Config-Std-v0.0.4.tar.gz X package version is not compliant with guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. ? description is questionable. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field is incorrect. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. X BuildRequires are proper (missing perl(Test::More)). * %clean is present. X package fails to build. * once made to build, the package installs properly X rpmlint has valid complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Config::Std) perl(Config::Std::Block) perl(Config::Std::Comment) perl(Config::Std::Gap) perl(Config::Std::Hash) perl(Config::Std::Keyval) perl-Config-Std = v0.0.4-3.fc8 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Class::Std) perl(Fcntl) perl(version) * %check is present and once necessary build dependencies are added, all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=11, Tests=31, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.50 cusr + 0.20 csys = 0.70 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/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