Bug 188523

Summary:	Review Request: perl-Params-Check
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Steven Pritchard <steve>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Jason Tibbitts <j>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-04-19 14:49:01 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	188505
Bug Blocks:	163779, 188527, 189042, 189043, 189044, 189046, 189047, 189048

Description Steven Pritchard 2006-04-10 20:57:20 UTC

Spec URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Params-Check/perl-Params-Check.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Params-Check-0.24-1.src.rpm
Description:
Params::Check is a generic input parsing/checking mechanism.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2006-04-12 01:38:12 UTC

* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and
conforms to the Perl template.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  It's not included separately in the
package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it.
* source files match upstream:
   3d135f26327b78adc9deb56252ce2381  Params-Check-0.24.tar.gz
   3d135f26327b78adc9deb56252ce2381  Params-Check-0.24.tar.gz-srpm
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (with dependencies added to a local repo)
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directory it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is present and all tests pass.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

APPROVED

Comment 2 Steven Pritchard 2006-04-19 14:49:01 UTC

Imported into CVS and packages built.