Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 190135
Summary: | Review Request: perl-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level hash/array DBM | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andreas Thienemann <andreas> |
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: | 2006-04-28 02:41:07 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: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Andreas Thienemann
2006-04-27 21:25:47 UTC
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and * 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: 09ddd163183e983bf1085688d0b25b75 DBM-Deep-0.983.tar.gz 09ddd163183e983bf1085688d0b25b75 DBM-Deep-0.983.tar.gz-srpm * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, i386) * rpmlint is silent. O final provides and requires are sane. (DBM::Deep::_::Root is a bit weird, but that's really what the package is called.) * 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=28, Tests=371, 15 wallclock secs (12.99 cusr + 1.02 csys = 14.01 CPU) * 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 Thx for the review, package has been built, closing as NEXTRELEASE. It seems a new version came out today (0.99_01). (In reply to comment #3) > It seems a new version came out today (0.99_01). This is a development release (note the underscore). It should *never* be used as a stable release. /jpo I've not seen the underscore convention before, but I do see the bug "***DEVELOPER RELEASE***" at CPAN. The daily updated packages messages sent to comp.lang.perl.announce unfortunately don't indicate development releases (unless you're expected to intuit such from the underscore in the version, I guess). This a CPAN convention: a package is considered 'unstable' or 'development' if there is an underscore in the version number. |