[Bug 678931] Review Request: perl-Math-Random-Secure - Cryptographically-secure, cross-platform replacement for rand()
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Mar 4 04:46:30 UTC 2011
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=678931
Iain Arnell <iarnell at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |iarnell at gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell <iarnell at gmail.com> 2011-03-03 23:46:28 EST ---
+ source files match upstream.
7397735ec33ef8fc69303b0a7d741b51 Math-Random-Secure-0.06.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.
+ license field matches the actual license.
Artistic 2.0
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ license text included.
+ latest version is being packaged.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ compiler flags are appropriate.
+ package builds in mock
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2883478
+ package installs properly.
+ rpmlint has no complaints:
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ final provides and requires are sane:
perl(Math::Random::Secure) = 0.06
perl-Math-Random-Secure = 0.06-2.fc16
perl(Math::Random::Secure::RNG) = 0.06
=
perl >= 0:5.008
perl(Any::Moose)
perl(base)
perl(constant)
perl(Crypt::Random::Source::Factory)
perl(Exporter)
perl(if)
perl(Math::Random::ISAAC)
perl(Math::Random::Secure::RNG)
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3)
perl(strict)
+ %check is present and all tests pass.
All tests successful.
Files=7, Tests=29, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.01 sys + 0.87 cusr
0.06 csys = 0.96 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.
APPROVED. You can remove META.json from %doc.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list