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=483933
Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-02-06 03:20:25 EDT
---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
d2813439a0da9b048cc1793af05b2144 for both
N/A - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
N/A - Spec handles locales/find_lang
N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Doc subpackage needed/used.
N/A - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
N/A - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
N/A - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
N/A - .so files in -devel subpackage.
N/A - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
N/A - .la files are removed.
N/A - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =;
rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
../RPMS/i386/perl-autobox-2.55-1.i386.rpm
autobox.so
perl(autobox) = 2.55
perl-autobox = 2.55-1
=
libc.so.6
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
perl = 0:5.008
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
perl(Carp)
perl(Exporter)
perl(Scalar::Util)
perl(Scope::Guard)
perl(Storable)
perl(XSLoader)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) = 3.0.3-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
../RPMS/i386/perl-autobox-debuginfo-2.55-1.i386.rpm
autobox.so.debug
perl-autobox-debuginfo = 2.55-1
=
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
SHOULD Items:
OK, tested on x86_64 - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
FAIL - Should function as described.
# perl -Mautobox -e 'my $range = 10-to(1); print $range;'
Can't call method to without a package or object reference at -e line 1.
# perl -Mautobox -e 'print $error = 3.1415927-minus(22/7)-abs();'
Can't call method minus without a package or object reference at -e line 1.
No scriptlets - Should have sane scriptlets.
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
N/A - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Strange is that tests passed, but example from documentation not. But maybe I'm
doing something wrong. And it can be definitelly addressed as regular bug.
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
