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=497665 Iain Arnell <iarn...@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |iarn...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |iarn...@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell <iarn...@gmail.com> 2009-04-26 05:12:08 EDT --- + source files match upstream. 2522e3de77fe005f13be3749e629b5234d449429 Crypt-CipherSaber-1.00.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=1321099 + package installs properly. + rpmlint has no complaints: perl-Crypt-CipherSaber.noarch: I: checking perl-Crypt-CipherSaber.src: I: checking 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane: perl(Crypt::CipherSaber) = 1.00 perl-Crypt-CipherSaber = 1.00-1.fc12 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(Carp) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(strict) perl(vars) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 + %check is present and all tests pass (with the caveat about Module::Signature) All tests successful. Files=10, Tests=32, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.07 usr 0.02 sys + 0.59 cusr 0.10 csys = 0.78 CPU) Result: PASS + 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review