Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Merge Review: perl-Sub-Uplevel - Apparently run a function in a higher stack frame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553127
Summary: Merge Review: perl-Sub-Uplevel - Apparently run a function in a higher stack frame Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mmaslano@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
SRPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/perl-Sub-Uplevel/0.2002/4.fc13/sr... Spec: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/fileinfo?rpmID=1712222&filename=perl-... Description: Like Tcl's uplevel() function, but not quite so dangerous. The idea is just to fool caller(). All the really naughty bits of Tcl's uplevel() are avoided.
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=553127
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jskarvad@redhat.com, | |mmaslano@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jskarvad@redhat.com
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=553127
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com 2010-01-27 09:59:47 EST --- MUST items: [YES] rpmplint on spec and RPMs is silent [YES] Package meets naming guidelines. [YES] Package meets packaging guidelines. [YES] Spec file matches base package name. [YES] License file is present, matching with spec file. [YES] Licensing Guidelines are met. [YES] Spec file is legible and in American English. [YES] Sources match upstream. [YES] Package builds OK. [YES] BuildRequires is correct. [YES] Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries. [YES] Package owns all the directories it creates. [YES] Package has no duplicity in %files. [YES] Permission on files are set properly. [YES] %clean section is correct. [YES] Spec file has consistant macro usage. [YES] Package is code or permissable content. [YES] %doc files don't affect runtime. [YES] No .la libtool archives. [YES][Perl] Package doesn't own files/directories that other packages own. [YES] Package has rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at beginning of %install. [YES] All files are valid UTF-8.
Should items: [YES] Package builds in mock. [YES] Package uses sane scriptlets. [YES] Package contains man pages.
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=553127
Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org