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-Inner - A perlish implementation of Java like inner classes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426228 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-12-20 16:26 EST ------- Source URL should probably be http://search.cpan.org/dist/Class-Inner/. There's usually no reason to put the class name in the summary, since it's derivable from the package name, but this isn't really a big deal. I don't see how you came to "GPLv2+ or Artistic 2.0" for the license tag. All I can see is that the README says "same as Perl", which is GPL+ or Artistic. This package puts a file in %{perl_vendorlib}/Class but doesn't own it or depend on anything that owns it. * source files match upstream: b4dcb388ac32923adbb9d2a501216a4fe039de4d6a447cc163c110826df81467 Class-Inner-0.1.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 does not match the actual license. * 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 (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Class::Inner) = 0.1 perl-Class-Inner = 0.1-2.fc9 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=13, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.01 cusr + 0.00 csys = 0.01 CPU) X 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