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=465690 Miroslav Suchy <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchy <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-14 04:20:27 EDT --- - rpmlint is silent - package name is ok - the spec file name match the base package - the package meet the packaging guidelines - license is ok (although it can be stated more directly than short notice in Makefile.PL, can you contact upstream to state it more clearly in README or in POD documentation?) - License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. - spec file is written in American English. - The spec file for the package is legible. - source has the same md5sum as upstream (d24534cdbbc274338b662d96809430d6) - build successfully http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=879575 - all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires - A package own all directories that it creates. - A package do not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - Permissions on files are set properly. - package have a %clean section - package consistently use macros - The package contain code, or permissable content - files in %doc, it do not affect the runtime of the application - At the beginning of %install, each package run rm -rf %{buildroot} - All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. You should have in Requires perl(DBI) since Multi.pm call several times function DBI->foo or DBI::foo. But since the upstream do not have "use DBI" in code, I'll not take it as blocker. But I encourage you to fill it as bug to upstream. APPROVED -- 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