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=527046
Iain Arnell <iarnell(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |iarnell(a)gmail.com
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |iarnell(a)gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Iain Arnell <iarnell(a)gmail.com> 2010-01-17 03:58:39 EST ---
+ source files match upstream.
35702d85347357a2f9dad7284dc17ba1 Tk-ObjScanner-2.012.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.
GPL+ or Artistic
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ license text not included upstream.
+ latest version is being packaged.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ compiler flags are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
+ package builds in mock
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1927836
+ package installs properly.
+ rpmlint has no complaints:
perl-Tk-ObjScanner.noarch: I: checking
perl-Tk-ObjScanner.src: I: checking
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ final provides and requires are sane:
perl(Tk::ObjScanner) = 2.12
perl-Tk-ObjScanner = 2.012-1.fc13
=
perl >= 0:5.006
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1)
perl(Carp)
perl(Data::Dumper)
perl(Scalar::Util)
perl(Tk::Derived)
perl(Tk::Frame)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
+ %check is present and all tests pass.
tests are X-based (ughh!) so not run automatically
+ 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.
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.