Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461307 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-01 13:54:40 EDT --- The Source: URL seems incorrect; at least, I get 404 when trying to download it. Not sure what's up there, but I found the package at: http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/R/RJ/RJBS/Software-License-%{version}.tar.gz I don't see that this should hold up approval of this package, though; it may simply be an error at CPAN. I guess you can switch to the more complicated URL or bug CPAN to fix the issue; either way works for me, and if nothing changes then the automated source-fetching report will start bugging you. After fixing that: * source files match upstream: d5e2f5aca8813132eb3fd7306e56f0c9b2863625c7d545ab606c5b25d499b05d Software-License-0.008.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. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * license text included in package. * 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(Software::License) = 0.008 perl(Software::License::AGPL_3) perl(Software::License::Apache_1_1) perl(Software::License::Apache_2_0) perl(Software::License::Artistic_1_0) perl(Software::License::Artistic_2_0) perl(Software::License::BSD) perl(Software::License::FreeBSD) perl(Software::License::GFDL_1_2) perl(Software::License::GPL_1) perl(Software::License::GPL_2) perl(Software::License::GPL_3) perl(Software::License::LGPL_2_1) perl(Software::License::LGPL_3_0) perl(Software::License::MIT) perl(Software::License::Mozilla_1_0) perl(Software::License::Mozilla_1_1) perl(Software::License::Perl_5) perl(Software::License::QPL_1_0) perl(Software::License::Sun) perl(Software::License::Zlib) perl(Software::LicenseUtils) perl-Software-License = 0.008-3.fc10 = perl >= 0:5.006 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(Data::Section) perl(Software::License::Artistic_1_0) perl(Software::License::GPL_1) perl(Sub::Install) perl(Text::Template) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=2, Tests=8, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr 0.01 sys + 0.06 cusr 0.01 csys = 0.09 CPU) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED! The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review