[Bug 466879] Package Review: perl-Crypt-GeneratePassword - Generate secure random pronounceable passwords

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=466879


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-10-17 16:29:18 EDT ---
Not much to say here, really.  I guess I could point out that most people tend
to prefer calling iconv over patching to fix utf8 issues, but that's up to you.

* source files match upstream:
   4274d1aedcdd6e5ad54f417390dae75bc9231726c7431ab1aee40a507b3748c3  
   Crypt-GeneratePassword-0.03.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.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   perl(Crypt::GeneratePassword) = 0.03
   perl-Crypt-GeneratePassword = 0.03-3.fc10
  =
   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
   perl(Exporter)
   perl(strict)
   perl(vars)

* %check is present and the one test passes.  It's about the minimal useful
test 
   suite you can get for a Perl module, but it's there.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

APPROVED

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.