[Bug 690751] Review Request: perl-criticism - Perl pragma to enforce coding standards and best-practices

[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=690751

Petr Sabata <psabata at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata <psabata at redhat.com> 2011-03-28 12:24:45 EDT ---
Package: perl-criticism
Version: 1.02
Release: 1.fc16
Sources: criticism-1.02.tar.gz
Patches: 
----------
Package successfully built locally.
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-x86_64.
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-i386.

MUST items:
[  OK  ] Sources match upstream
[  OK  ] Package does NOT include pre-built binaries or libraries
[  OK  ] Spec file is legible and written in American english
[  OK  ] Package successfully builds on at least one supported primary
architecture
[  --  ] All ExcludeArch tags valid, referencing proper bug reports
[  OK  ] Package obeys FHS (with _libexecdir and /srv exceptions)
[  OK  ] No errors reported by rpmlint
[  OK  ] Changelog present and properly formatted
[  OK  ] Package does NOT include Packager, Vendor, Copyright or PreReq tags
[  OK  ] Source tags are working URLs or justified otherwise
[  OK  ] Requires correct or justified otherwise
[  OK  ] BuildRequires correct or justified otherwise
[  OK  ] All file names are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[  OK  ] All plain text failes are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[  --  ] Large documentation files are located in doc subpackage
[  OK  ] All documentation prefixed with %doc
[  OK  ] Documentation is NOT executable
[  OK  ] No files in %doc are needed at run-time
[  --  ] Compiler flags honor Fedora defaults or are justified
[  --  ] Package generates useful debuginfo packages
[  --  ] Header files are placed in devel subpackage
[  --  ] Unversioned shared libraries are placed in devel subpackage
[  --  ] Pkgconfig files are placed in devel subpackage
[  --  ] Full-versioned Requires of the base package in subpackages
[  --  ] Package calls ldconfig in post and postun sections for all
subpackages, if applicable
[  --  ] Static libraries are provided by static subpackage
[  OK  ] Package contains no static executables unless approved by FESCo
[  OK  ] Package does NOT bundle any system libraries
[  --  ] RPath not used for anything besides internal libraries
[  --  ] All config files are marked noreplace or justified otherwise
[  OK  ] No config files are located under /usr
[  --  ] Package contains a SystemV-compatible initscript
[  --  ] A GUI application installs a proper desktop file
[  --  ] All desktop files are installed by desktop-file-install or justified
otherwise
[  OK  ] Package consistently uses macros
[  --  ] makeinstall macro is used only if make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
does NOT work
[  --  ] Macros in Summary and description are expandable at build-time
[  --  ] globals used in place of defines
[  --  ] Locales handled correctly -- package requires gettext and uses
find_lang, if applicable
[  --  ] Scriptlets are sane
[  OK  ] Package is not relocatable unless justified
[  OK  ] Package contains only acceptable code or content
[  OK  ] Package owns all the files and directories it creates, installs and/or
uses unless those are already owned by another package
[  OK  ] files sections do NOT contain duplicate files except for licenses
[  OK  ] All files sections use defattr or justify otherwise
[  OK  ] Package does NOT cause any conflicts
[  OK  ] Package does NOT contain kernel modules
[  OK  ] Package does NOT bundle fonts or other general purpose data
[  OK  ] Final Requires and Provides are sane

SHOULD items:
[  OK  ] The Summary does NOT end with a period
[  OK  ] Package does NOT include BuildRoot tag, clean section or buildroot
removal in install section
[  OK  ] Package should preserve files timestamps
[  OK  ] Package does NOT explicitly BuildRequire bash, bzip2, coreutils, cpio,
diffutils, fedora-release, findutils, gawk, gcc, gcc-c++, grep, gzip, info,
make, patch, redhat-rpm-config, rpm-build, sed, shadow-utils, tar, unzip,
util-linux-ng, which or xz
[  OK  ] Description does NOT consist of lines longer than 80 characters
[  --  ] Package uses parallel make
[  --  ] In case of a web application, package installs date into /usr/share
instead of /var/www
[  --  ] All patches have a comment or an upstream bug link
[  --  ] Package installs manpages for all executables
[  OK  ] Package contains check section and all tests pass
[  ??  ] Package works as expected

NOTES:
------
Everything seems okay, approving.

-- 
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.