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=675364
Iain Arnell iarnell@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |iarnell@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |iarnell@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell iarnell@gmail.com 2011-02-27 04:48:43 EST --- + source files match upstream. 273adb11b5c4701dc43273d82ab26dd9 Digest-JHash-0.07.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. Artistic 2.0
+ license is open source-compatible. + license text not included upstream. + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + package builds in mock http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2869957
+ package installs properly. + rpmlint has no complaints: 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ final provides and requires are sane: perl(Digest::JHash) = 0.07 perl-Digest-JHash = 0.07-1.fc16 perl-Digest-JHash(x86-64) = 0.07-1.fc16 = libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) perl(DynaLoader) perl(Exporter) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings)
+ %check is present and all tests pass. PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/jhash.t ......... ok t/pod.t ........... ok t/pod_coverage.t .. ok All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=7, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.00 sys + 0.09 cusr 0.02 csys = 0.13 CPU) Result: PASS
+ 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.
A nice simple clean package. APPROVED.