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=732430 Petr Sabata <psab...@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata <psab...@redhat.com> 2011-08-22 09:44:58 EDT --- Package: perl-Classic-Perl Version: 0.02 Release: 0.1.a.fc17 Sources: Classic-Perl-0.02a.tar.gz Patches: ---------- Package successfully built locally. Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-x86_64. Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-i386. Package successfully built in koji, dist-rawhide. MUST items: [ OK ] Package does NOT include pre-built binaries or libraries [ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American english [ OK ] Package successfully builds on at least one supported primary architecture [ -- ] All ExcludeArch tags valid, referencing proper bug reports [ OK ] Package obeys FHS (with _libexecdir and /srv exceptions) [ OK ] No errors reported by rpmlint [ OK ] Changelog present and properly formatted [ OK ] Package does NOT include Packager, Vendor, Copyright or PreReq tags [ OK ] Source tags are working URLs and sources match upstream or justified otherwise [ OK ] Requires correct or justified otherwise [ OK ] BuildRequires correct or justified otherwise [ OK ] All file names are in proper UTF-8 encoding [ OK ] All plain text failes are in proper UTF-8 encoding [ -- ] Large documentation files are located in doc subpackage [ OK ] All documentation prefixed with %doc [ OK ] Documentation is NOT executable [ OK ] No files in %doc are needed at run-time [ OK ] Compiler flags honor Fedora defaults or are justified [ OK ] Package generates useful debuginfo packages [ -- ] Header files are placed in devel subpackage [ -- ] Unversioned shared libraries are placed in devel subpackage [ -- ] Pkgconfig files are placed in devel subpackage [ -- ] Full-versioned Requires of the base package in subpackages [ -- ] Package calls ldconfig in post and postun sections for all subpackages, if applicable [ -- ] Static libraries are provided by static subpackage [ OK ] Package contains no static executables unless approved by FESCo [ OK ] Package does NOT bundle any system libraries [ OK ] RPath not used for anything besides internal libraries [ -- ] All config files are marked noreplace or justified otherwise [ OK ] No config files are located under /usr [ -- ] Package contains working systemd unit files and requires systemd-units [ -- ] All systemd unit files are named according to the Guidelines [ -- ] Package contains a SystemV-compatible initscript only as an optional addition to systemd unit files [ -- ] If package contains an initscript, it's placed in sysvinit subpackage [ -- ] A GUI application installs a proper desktop file [ -- ] All desktop files are installed by desktop-file-install or justified otherwise [ OK ] Package consistently uses macros [ -- ] makeinstall macro is used only if make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} does NOT work [ -- ] Macros in Summary and description are expandable at build-time [ OK ] globals used in place of defines [ -- ] Locales handled correctly -- package requires gettext and uses find_lang, if applicable [ -- ] Scriptlets are sane [ OK ] Package is not relocatable unless justified [ OK ] Package contains only acceptable code or content [ OK ] Package owns all the files and directories it creates, installs and/or uses unless those are already owned by another package [ OK ] files sections do NOT contain duplicate files except for licenses [ OK ] Package does NOT cause any conflicts [ OK ] Package does NOT contain kernel modules [ OK ] Package does NOT bundle fonts or other general purpose data [ OK ] Final Requires and Provides are sane SHOULD items: [ OK ] The Summary does NOT end with a period [ OK ] Package does NOT include BuildRoot tag, clean section or buildroot removal in install section [ OK ] Package should preserve files timestamps [ OK ] Package does NOT explicitly BuildRequire bash, bzip2, coreutils, cpio, diffutils, fedora-release, findutils, gawk, gcc, gcc-c++, grep, gzip, info, make, patch, redhat-rpm-config, rpm-build, sed, shadow-utils, tar, unzip, util-linux-ng, which or xz [ OK ] Description does NOT consist of lines longer than 80 characters [ OK ] Package uses parallel make [ -- ] In case of a web application, package installs date into /usr/share instead of /var/www [ -- ] All patches have a comment or an upstream bug link [ -- ] Package installs manpages for all executables [ OK ] Package contains check section and all tests pass [ ?? ] Package works as expected NOTES: ------ What a nice package. All seems fine, approving. -- 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
