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=497634 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell <iarn...@gmail.com> 2009-04-28 03:06:19 EDT --- Thanks - that's a very comprehensive review. There are a couple of gotchas with perl packages that aren't directly covered by the review guidelines, though - just implied by the perl packaging guidelines. Since most perl packages come with a comprehensive test suite, it is policy to run as much of the suite as possible. Reviewers will usually check this and point out any skipped/failed tests due to missing build dependencies. In this case, you can see from the mock build.log that all tests ran and passed: t/001Basic.t ... ok t/002Params.t .. ok All tests successful. Files=2, Tests=8, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.01 sys + 0.28 cusr 0.03 csys = 0.34 CPU) Result: PASS And unfortunately, RPM's dependency generator sometimes misses (or adds unnecessary) requires or provides. Again, reviewers will usually mention that they have checked them. In this case, they look reasonable to me (but the point of the review is that they look reasonable to someone else, too): rpm -qp --provides perl-App-Daemon-0.06-1.fc11.noarch.rpm perl(App::Daemon) = 0.06 perl-App-Daemon = 0.06-1.fc11 rpm -qp --requires perl-App-Daemon-0.06-1.fc11.noarch.rpm perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(Exporter) perl(Fcntl) perl(File::Basename) perl(Getopt::Std) perl(Log::Log4perl) perl(POSIX) perl(Pod::Usage) perl(Proc::ProcessTable) perl(strict) perl(warnings) -- 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
