Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Install
What |Removed |Added
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2006-05-07 18:17 EST -------
The source URL seems to be wrong; is upstream really on your site? CPAN says
which I'll take as upstream for the purposes fo this review.
One of the tests spits out some warnings because various utilities are missing;
is it worth adding additional BR:s to get more coverage?
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and
follows the Perl specfile template.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. It's not included separately in the
package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it.
* source files match upstream:
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane (many manual Requires: not picked by
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is present and all tests pass:
All tests successful.
Files=4, Tests=51, 2 wallclock secs ( 0.58 cusr + 0.26 csys = 0.84 CPU)
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.