[Bug 198021] Review Request: perl-Log-Dispatch-Config
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jul 8 04:52:02 UTC 2006
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-Log-Dispatch-Config
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198021
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-07-08 00:43 EST -------
Just a note that there's an empty line at the top of your .spec.
* source files match upstream:
9d9b7b5d3426819e6b6e14e91b867242 Log-Dispatch-Config-1.01.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.
O BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is not required).
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* rpmlint is silent.
* noarch package, so no debuginfo.
* final provides and requires are sane:
perl(Log::Dispatch::Config) = 1.01
perl(Log::Dispatch::Configurator) = 1.00
perl(Log::Dispatch::Configurator::AppConfig) = 1.00
perl-Log-Dispatch-Config = 1.01-0.fc6
=
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
perl(AppConfig)
perl(Log::Dispatch) >= 2.00
perl(Log::Dispatch::Configurator)
perl(base)
perl(strict)
perl(vars)
* %check is present and all tests pass:
All tests successful.
Files=15, Tests=48, 4 wallclock secs ( 0.68 cusr + 0.27 csys = 0.95 CPU)
* no shared libraries are present.
* 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.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list