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=463771
Dan Horák dan@danny.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |dan@danny.cz AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dan@danny.cz Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz 2008-09-25 02:57:04 EDT --- formal review is here, see the notes below:
OK source files match upstream: 36a9dde1953c0ab0bcd3998fca876b8f20f245cd Probe-Perl-0.01.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. N/A compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). N/A debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK* final provides and requires look sane. OK %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app.
- the explicit R: perl(Config) is redundant, it is found automagically
this package is APPROVED