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=226285 Stepan Kasal <skasal@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Stepan Kasal <skasal@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-14 06:56:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease As mentioned in comment #10, I'm convinced the non-standard version tag should stay in this case. > - source matches upstream FAIL -> source at upstream is in tar.gz format Fixed in release 34. > - no unnecessary BR FAIL > [...] > Please fix the source and useless dependency. ??? BuildRequires: perl-libxml-perl perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) I see no problem here. (In reply to comment #10) > perl-XML-Grove.noarch: E: useless-explicit-provides perl(XML::Grove) > This package provides 2 times the same capacity. It should only provide it > once. No explicit provides. Both "perl(XML::Grove)" and "perl(XML::Grove) = 0.46" are generated. It might be a bug in rpmlint or the dependency generator, but not in this package. > perl-XML-Grove.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency > /usr/share/doc/perl-XML-Grove-0.46alpha/examples/my-html.pl > perl(XML::Parser::PerlSAX) > An included file marked as %doc creates a possible additional dependency in > the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be caused by eg. example > scripts with executable bits set included in the package's documentation. > > (the latter is repeated twice) Again, these are bogus. The *.pl files in doc do not have their executable bit set, and the require "perl(XML::Parser::PerlSAX)" is justified by other *.pm files in the package. To sum up, the review passed. Several issues about rpmlint and/or the dependency generator are due to be filed. -- 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