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=799284 --- Comment #4 from xning@xxxxxxxxxx 2012-03-25 22:29:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Package Review > ============== > > Key: > - = N/A > x = Pass > ! = Fail > ? = Not evaluated > > > ==== Generic ==== > [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > [-]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at > least one supported primary architecture. > [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any > that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present > Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine > [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. > [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required > [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 > [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [!]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. > [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. > [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required > [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. > [-]: 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 is included in %doc. > [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [?]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. > [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. > [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [?]: MUST Package installs properly. > [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [?]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. > [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. > /home/contyk/src/review/799284/Pod-Plainer-1.03.tar.gz : > MD5SUM this package : 15d42071d6bd861cb72daa8cc3111cd3 > MD5SUM upstream package : 15d42071d6bd861cb72daa8cc3111cd3 > [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [!]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. > [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. > [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > [!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [-]: 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. > [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. > [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, > /usr/sbin. > [!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q > --requires). > [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. > [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. > [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from > upstream. > [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. > [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. > [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > [-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. > > Issues: > FIX: The package doesn't build due to missing build dependencies; add > perl(Test::More) and, optionally, perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) >= 1.00 to your > BRs. > FIX: The URL is wrong; correct it to http://search.cpan.org/dist/Pod-Plainer/ > FIX: Also the SPEC filename is just lowercase. This needs to be fixed too. > FIX: Remove useless Provides; this is created automatically by rpmbuild. > TODO: Also, you don't have to explicitly require perl(Pod::Parser), rpmbuild > gets this. > TODO: Use %{version} in Source tag. > FIX: Your package doesn't require Perl MODULE_COMPAT. Add > "perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version))" to your > Requires. > TODO: Don't package META* in %doc. There's nothing of interest for the > end-user. > TIP: Don't rely on gzip manpage compression. Replace '.gz' with '*'. > TIP: You don't have to use OPTIMIZE since this is a noarch package, as you also > state on line 28. > FIX: Don't define PREFIX, and especially -- don't use hardcoded paths like > '/usr'. > > Not approved. > Fix the items marked as 'FIX', 'TODOs' are highly recommended. > > Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git > External plugins: Has fixed the items marked as 'FIX', 'TODO', and 'TIP', Petr. Pls recheck this package. Thanks a lot. Spec URL: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/64704553/perl-pod-plainer.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/64704553/perl-Pod-Plainer-1.03-1.fc16.src.rpm -- 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