[Bug 466223] Review Request: perl-Sysadm-Install - Typical installation tasks for system administrators
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=466223
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |tibbs(a)math.uh.edu
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2008-10-09 15:51:57 EDT ---
I don't really object to it, but I think the first paragraph of %description is
content-free in the context of a package description.
/usr/bin/one-liner probably should not be shipped; it seems completely
pointless, has a generic name, and is already shipped as documentation.
My checklist:
* source files match upstream:
8cadfb192f92b12d18c0123472924dfe779fefb027051adbff8c7fdcae246778
Sysadm-Install-0.27.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(Sysadm::Install) = 0.27
perl-Sysadm-Install = 0.27-1.fc10
=
/usr/bin/perl
perl >= 0:5.006
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
perl(Archive::Tar)
perl(Cwd)
perl(Expect)
perl(File::Basename)
perl(File::Copy)
perl(File::Path)
perl(File::Spec::Functions)
perl(File::Temp)
perl(LWP::Simple)
perl(Log::Log4perl)
perl(Log::Log4perl::Util)
perl(Sysadm::Install)
perl(Term::ReadKey)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
* %check is present and all tests pass:
All tests successful.
Files=12, Tests=43, 1 wallclock secs
* 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.
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.