Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: perl-Gtk2-TrayIcon


           What    |Removed                     |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-08-11 00:12 EST -------
This builds and installs fine; the provided example file runs fine.

The only rpmlint issue is:
W: perl-Gtk2-TrayIcon devel-file-in-non-devel-package
which is normal for arch-specific Perl modules.

* source files match upstream:
   4c627fd00cc316ac018732e7739a5c4f  Gtk2-TrayIcon-0.03.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has only ignorable errors.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   perl(Gtk2::TrayIcon) = 0.03
   perl-Gtk2-TrayIcon = 0.03-1.fc6
   perl >= 0:5.008
* %check is present but necessarily disabled.  It does run manually.
* shared libraries are present, but internal to Perl.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* the single header file is internal to Perl.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.


Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to