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=469833
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tibbs@math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2008-11-07 09:30:33 EDT --- I followed the URL as usual when doing reviews and failed to notice that I had ended up at the Math-GMP page, which confused the hell out of me. I think you want URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Math-BigInt-GMP/ instead.
That's really the only thing I see wrong with this package; I'll approve it and you can fix up the URL when you check in.
* source files match upstream: 3f00fb0191b4343745b99f104a50f50a49fa7424fe70cc002f000465161a8eb4 Math-BigInt-GMP-1.24.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. * license is open source-compatible. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: GMP.so()(64bit) perl(Math::BigInt::GMP) = 1.24 perl-Math-BigInt-GMP = 1.24-1.fc10 perl-Math-BigInt-GMP(x86-64) = 1.24-1.fc10 = libgmp.so.3()(64bit) perl >= 0:5.006002 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(XSLoader) perl(strict) perl(vars)
* %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=7, Tests=5530, 3 wallclock secs ( 0.51 usr 0.03 sys + 2.50 cusr 0.07 csys = 3.11 CPU)
* 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. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files.
APPROVED, just fix up the URL.
The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one.