[Bug 210117] Review Request: perl-aliased - Use shorter versions of class names
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Oct 13 04:04:14 UTC 2006
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-aliased - Use shorter versions of class names
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210117
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-10-13 00:04 EST -------
My apologies for taking so long with this; the past couple of days have been
rather eventful.
* source files match upstream:
0bfab0c5dcff5a4903e04feb22d37b9b aliased-0.20.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
perl(aliased) = 0.20
perl-aliased = 0.20-1.fc6
=
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
perl(Exporter)
perl(strict)
* %check is present and all tests pass:
All tests successful.
Files=4, Tests=23, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.17 cusr + 0.05 csys = 0.22 CPU)
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* 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.
APPROVED
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list