Bug 477515

Additional info:

scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/scratch/chitlesh/task_1013492/logs/noarch/

Workaround bugfix was reported :  Bug 477516 -  perl and dependencies

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 including the Perl specific items
 [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: empty
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 Packaging 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 license(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: 1ad7245b666ce8fa87966b3a1565393d70380e13 Hardware-Vhdl-Lexer-1.00.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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 [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: koji scratch build + devel/x86_64
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
     Tested on: koji scratch build + devel/x86_64
 [?] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.
 [x] %check is present and the tests pass.
 [x] Final provides and requires are sane.

Notes
======
1. It seems that the test phase would be happier if Test::Pod was available:
t/pod.............skipped: Test::Pod 1.14 required for testing POD
The package is available for all versions of Fedora and EPEL, so I see no reason to not BR it.

2. Requires:       perl(Class::Std) is not needed, rpmbuild peeks it automatically

3. Are you sure that perl(Test::More) and perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) are needed as Requires? At a quick glance I did not see them being "Use"d.

Hello Manuel,
are there any other issues except the BR and Rs ?

None that I can see. APPROVED (I'll trust you to fix those before commit)

Updated:
Spec URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/perl-Hardware-Vhdl-Lexer.spec
SRPM URL:
http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/perl-Hardware-Vhdl-Lexer-1.00-2.fc10.src.rpm

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Hardware-Vhdl-Lexer
Short Description: Split VHDL code into lexical tokens
Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5
Owner: chitlesh

cvs done.

perl-Hardware-Vhdl-Lexer-1.00-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Hardware-Vhdl-Lexer-1.00-2.fc9

perl-Hardware-Vhdl-Lexer-1.00-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Hardware-Vhdl-Lexer-1.00-2.fc10

perl-Hardware-Vhdl-Lexer-1.00-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Hardware-Vhdl-Lexer-1.00-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.