Bug 463138

Update:

Spec URL:
http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple.spec
SRPM URL:
http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple-0.09-2.fc10.src.rpm

The build log says 
t/pod-coverage....skipped: Test::Pod::Coverage 1.04 required for testing POD coverage
t/pod.............skipped: Test::Pod 1.14 required for testing POD

Is this really intended ? Both are in rawhide already

(In reply to comment #2)
> Is this really intended ? Both are in rawhide already
No, this wasn't intended - Seems as if I am a bit swamped with Fedora's bureaucracy and infrastructure defects ;)

However, in general, these two are special, because these only check for a package's integrity/cleanness and don't actually check a package for functionality. It's the reason why some packagers prefer to systematically ignore them, while others prefer to add them.

I am in the latter group, and will add them ASAP.

Next try:

Spec URL:
http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple.spec
SRPM URL:
http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple-0.09-3.fc10.src.rpm

Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM:perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple.src: E: unknown-key GPG#8ff214b4
--> ignorable
binary RPM:empty
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Pack
aging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: GPL+ or Artistic
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the l
icense(s) for the package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: d80afc773737dc40e19024dedf455b04f3ce021b IPC-Run-SafeHandles-0.02.tar.gz
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
-> package is noarch
 [?] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.

 All tests (%make check) pass


================
*** APPROVED ***
================

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple
Short Description: Test::More functions for HTTP::Server::Simple
Owners: corsepiu
Branches: F-9 F-8
InitialCC: perl-sig

cvs done.

perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple-0.09-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple-0.09-3.fc9

perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple-0.09-3.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple-0.09-3.fc8

perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple-0.09-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple-0.09-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

corsepiu is listed as not interested in EPEL


Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple
New Branches: EL-6
Owners: tremble

CVS done.