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=468799 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-28 16:55:02 EDT --- Not much to say. * source files match upstream: 830d02266bc03a338b6ea551da7acf2f63c2cff7680157db7fed10c72e25bf5b MooseX-StrictConstructor-0.07.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. * 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(MooseX::StrictConstructor) = 0.07 perl(MooseX::StrictConstructor::Role::Meta::Method::Constructor) perl(MooseX::StrictConstructor::Role::Object) perl-MooseX-StrictConstructor = 0.07-1.fc10 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(Carp) perl(Class::MOP) perl(Moose) >= 0.56 perl(Moose::Exporter) perl(Moose::Role) perl(Moose::Util::MetaRole) perl(MooseX::StrictConstructor::Role::Meta::Method::Constructor) perl(MooseX::StrictConstructor::Role::Object) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=15, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr 0.01 sys + 0.19 cusr 0.02 csys = 0.23 CPU) Result: PASS * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * 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