Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567848 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2010-03-02 17:50:03 EST --- Review: perl-MooseX-Types-JSON Bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567848 Date: March 2nd 2010 Scratch Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2026592 See at bottom for what did not pass: * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. PASS $ rpmlint SPECS/perl-MooseX-Types-JSON.spec \ SRPMS/perl-MooseX-Types-JSON-0.02-1.fc12.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/perl-MooseX-Types-JSON-0.02-1.fc12.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. PASS. Named as per perl module. * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. PASS. * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. PASS. * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . GPL+ or Artistic in .spec file. * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Copyright 2009 Michael Langner, all rights reserved. This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. * MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. FAIL - see below. * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. PASS. * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. PASS. * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. PASS. $ md5sum MooseX-Types-JSON-0.02.tar.gz ../SOURCES/MooseX-Types-JSON-0.02.tar.gz e6eb8745f38051ff471755759e6006c8 MooseX-Types-JSON-0.02.tar.gz e6eb8745f38051ff471755759e6006c8 ../SOURCES/MooseX-Types-JSON-0.02.tar.gz * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. PASS. See koji build above. * MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. PASS. Not relavent. * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. PASS. BR look sane. * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden PASS. Not relavent. * MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. PASS: No shared libs. * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. PASS. * MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. PASS. Not relocatable. * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. PASS. * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. PASS. * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. PASS. defattr set, everything default. * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). PASS: * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. PASS. * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. PASS. * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). PASS.no large docs. * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. PASS. * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. PASS. - nothing to go in a devel. * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. PASS. - no static libs. * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). PASS. - no pkg-config files. * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. PASS. - no .so files. * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} PASS. - no devel packages. * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[21] PASS. - no .la files. * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. PASS. - no gui. * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. FAIL. - See below. * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). PASS. * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. PASS. * SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. PASS. * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. PASS. None available. * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. PASS. See koji build. * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. PASS. See koji build. * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. PASS. test functions pass. * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. PASS. None. * SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. PASS. Not relavent. * SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. PASS. Not relavent. * SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. PASS. requires no filenames. * SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. PASS. man pages are present. ######################################################################### Items with FAIL: 1) The README file contains a license statement. As such it should be included as a %doc. 2) This package contains: /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/MooseX but the package depends on perl-MooseX which contains exactly this directory. In other words its not obvious to me at least why this package should contain: /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/MooseX. Steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review