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 191619
| Summary: | Review Request: perl-CSS-Tiny - Read/Write .css files with as little code as possible | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jose Pedro Oliveira <jose.p.oliveira.oss> |
| 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: | 2006-05-15 23:42:10 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, 191620 | ||
|
Description
Jose Pedro Oliveira
2006-05-13 23:10:10 UTC
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. |