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=527046 Iain Arnell <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] AssignedTo|[email protected] |[email protected] Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Iain Arnell <[email protected]> 2010-01-17 03:58:39 EST --- + source files match upstream. 35702d85347357a2f9dad7284dc17ba1 Tk-ObjScanner-2.012.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. GPL+ or Artistic + 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 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1927836 + package installs properly. + rpmlint has no complaints: perl-Tk-ObjScanner.noarch: I: checking perl-Tk-ObjScanner.src: I: checking 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane: perl(Tk::ObjScanner) = 2.12 perl-Tk-ObjScanner = 2.012-1.fc13 = perl >= 0:5.006 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1) perl(Carp) perl(Data::Dumper) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(Tk::Derived) perl(Tk::Frame) perl(strict) perl(warnings) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 + %check is present and all tests pass. tests are X-based (ughh!) so not run automatically + 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. 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
