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=469833 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-07 09:30:33 EDT --- I followed the URL as usual when doing reviews and failed to notice that I had ended up at the Math-GMP page, which confused the hell out of me. I think you want URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Math-BigInt-GMP/ instead. That's really the only thing I see wrong with this package; I'll approve it and you can fix up the URL when you check in. * source files match upstream: 3f00fb0191b4343745b99f104a50f50a49fa7424fe70cc002f000465161a8eb4 Math-BigInt-GMP-1.24.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. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: GMP.so()(64bit) perl(Math::BigInt::GMP) = 1.24 perl-Math-BigInt-GMP = 1.24-1.fc10 perl-Math-BigInt-GMP(x86-64) = 1.24-1.fc10 = libgmp.so.3()(64bit) perl >= 0:5.006002 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(XSLoader) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=7, Tests=5530, 3 wallclock secs ( 0.51 usr 0.03 sys + 2.50 cusr 0.07 csys = 3.11 CPU) * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * 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. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED, just fix up the URL. 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