Spec URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-CSS-Tiny.spec SRPM URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-CSS-Tiny-1.11-1.src.rpm Description: CSS::Tiny is a perl class to read and write .css stylesheets with as little code as possible, reducing load time and memory overhead.
Everything looks good; the only thing I question is the reason for including test.css as %doc. It seems a bit pointless to me, but I guess it doesn't hurt anything. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text is included in the package. * source files match upstream: 66fac70597a4e6628f1875037d1d2a94 CSS-Tiny-1.11.tar.gz 66fac70597a4e6628f1875037d1d2a94 CSS-Tiny-1.11.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories 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: All tests successful. Files=4, Tests=47, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.14 cusr + 0.06 csys = 0.20 CPU) * no scriptlets present. * 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
(In reply to comment #1) > Everything looks good; the only thing I question is the reason for including > test.css as %doc. It seems a bit pointless to me, but I guess it doesn't hurt > anything. Indeed. I could swear it was a CSS example with more juicy. I will remove next update. Imported and built for FC-5 and devel.