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=675364
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 2011-02-27 04:48:43 EST ---
+ source files match upstream.
273adb11b5c4701dc43273d82ab26dd9 Digest-JHash-0.07.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.
Artistic 2.0
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ license text not included upstream.
+ latest version is being packaged.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ compiler flags are appropriate.
+ package builds in mock
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2869957
+ package installs properly.
+ rpmlint has no complaints:
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ final provides and requires are sane:
perl(Digest::JHash) = 0.07
perl-Digest-JHash = 0.07-1.fc16
perl-Digest-JHash(x86-64) = 0.07-1.fc16
=
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
perl(DynaLoader)
perl(Exporter)
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3)
perl(strict)
perl(vars)
perl(warnings)
+ %check is present and all tests pass.
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -MExtUtils::Command::MM -e
test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch') t/*.t
t/jhash.t . ok
t/pod.t ... ok
t/pod_coverage.t .. ok
All tests successful.
Files=3, Tests=7, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.00 sys + 0.09 cusr 0.02
csys = 0.13 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.
A nice simple clean 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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
