[Bug 907924] Review Request: perl-Stream-Buffered - Temporary buffer to save bytes

2013-09-13 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907924



--- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
Hi Ralf,

Now that this is in stable, would you be ok with closing out this bug?

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Stream-Buffered

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jNI09edDFVa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 907924] Review Request: perl-Stream-Buffered - Temporary buffer to save bytes

2013-09-13 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907924

Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2013-09-13 10:12:28



--- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #3)
 Hi Ralf,
 
 Now that this is in stable, would you be ok with closing out this bug?
Sure, wonder why this wasn't closed long ago :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=67YXqNpmEca=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 907924] Review Request: perl-Stream-Buffered - Temporary buffer to save bytes

2013-05-20 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907924

Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |
  Flags||fedora-cvs+

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vU0JgN6L5ja=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 907924] Review Request: perl-Stream-Buffered - Temporary buffer to save bytes

2013-05-19 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907924

Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: perl-Stream-Buffered
Short Description: Temporary buffer to save bytes
Owners: corsepiu
Branches: f19 f18 f17
InitialCC: perl-sig

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SQL4srbAc9a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 907924] Review Request: perl-Stream-Buffered - Temporary buffer to save bytes

2013-05-18 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907924

Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
  Flags||fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
TL;DR summary: package is approved.


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines. (GPL+ or Artistic)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm  4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
 in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
 for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
 be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
 from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or