[Bug 243010] Review Request: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 - Perl interface to bzip2 compression library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jun 6 23:23:56 UTC 2007
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-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 - Perl interface to bzip2 compression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243010
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-06-06 19:23 EST -------
This builds fine for me, but it looks like test coverage could be enhanced by a
build dependency on perl(Test::Pod):
t/99pod........skipped
all skipped: Test::Pod 1.00 required for testing POD
Since that's a trivial fix and it's the only issue I see with this package, I'll
go ahead and approve it and you can fix it when you check in.
Review:
* source files match upstream:
5711ea0627018fdf94eba9443c6e0c7fe109c396ef6896716f3a151eed6225ad
Compress-Raw-Bzip2-2.004.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.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires missing Test::Pod
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
Bzip2.so()(64bit)
perl(Compress::Raw::Bunzip2)
perl(Compress::Raw::Bzip2)
perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 = 2.004-1.fc8
=
perl >= 0:5.004
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
perl(AutoLoader)
perl(Carp)
perl(Exporter)
perl(bytes)
perl(constant)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
X %check is present, but one test is skipped due to missing dependencies.
* 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 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 static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
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