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=462818 --- Comment #4 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-13 19:31:02 EDT --- Review: - rpmlint clean - package meets naming guidelines - spec file name matches package name - package meets guidelines - license is same as perl - license tag is correct - no license file in upstream tarball to include (though included README states terms) - spec file written in English and is legible - source matches upstream (size, timestamp, md5sum ba039288ebf7a343feecacd374da8c1a) - latest upstream version packaged - no worrying-looking bugs on CPAN - package builds on on Rawhide x86_64 in mock - buildreqs OK - no locales, shared or static libraries, or devel files to worry about - package is not designed to be relocatable - no duplicate files - permissions sane - %clean section present and correct in spec file - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - no large docs, in fact no large anything - docs don't affect runtime - no subpackages - not a GUI app, no desktop file needed - %install section starts by clearing buildroot - all filenames are valid UTF-8 - no scriptlets NEEDSWORK: - directories %{perl_vendorlib}/Net/ and %{perl_vendorlib}/Net/SMTP/ need to be owned by the package Fix that and I'll approve this and sponsor you. -- 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