[Bug 790369] Review Request: perl-Digest-SHA - Perl extension for SHA-1/224/256/384/512
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=790369 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-02-29 03:49:30 --- Comment #7 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2012-02-29 03:49:30 EST --- Package unblocked and built. -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790369] Review Request: perl-Digest-SHA - Perl extension for SHA-1/224/256/384/512
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=790369 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-Digest-SHA-5.70-1.fc18 --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2012-02-22 07:48:53 EST --- Thank you for the review. The package needs unblocking now (https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5091). -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790369] Review Request: perl-Digest-SHA - Perl extension for SHA-1/224/256/384/512
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=790369 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790369] Review Request: perl-Digest-SHA - Perl extension for SHA-1/224/256/384/512
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=790369 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2012-02-21 12:21:37 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Digest-SHA Short Description: Perl extension for SHA-1/224/256/384/512 Owners: ppisar mmaslano psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790369] Review Request: perl-Digest-SHA - Perl extension for SHA-1/224/256/384/512
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=790369 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-21 12:40:02 EST --- Unretired devel branch. wtogami still owns EL-5 and EL-6. Please submit a package change request if you need addition fc branches. -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790369] Review Request: perl-Digest-SHA - Perl extension for SHA-1/224/256/384/512
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=790369 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2012-02-21 12:49:16 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Digest-SHA New Branches: Owners: InitialCC: perl-sig You are right. Please add `perl-sig' user with watch* permissions only to `devel' branch. -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790369] Review Request: perl-Digest-SHA - Perl extension for SHA-1/224/256/384/512
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=790369 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-21 12:55:05 EST --- Done. -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790369] Review Request: perl-Digest-SHA - Perl extension for SHA-1/224/256/384/512
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=790369 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790369] Review Request: perl-Digest-SHA - Perl extension for SHA-1/224/256/384/512
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=790369
Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com 2012-02-16 11:38:31 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST Package contains no unknown licenses
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/790369/Digest-SHA-5.70.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : cefc01a498e6f39eb2e066a238401c19
MD5SUM upstream package : cefc01a498e6f39eb2e066a238401c19
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
TIP: Add perl(Test::More) as a BR to your 'Optional tests'.
Approving.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.1
External plugins:
--
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
