Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876403 --- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova <jplesnik@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Missing BR perl(ExtUtils::Manifest) perl(File::Path) perl(File::Spec::Functions) perl(Cwd) perl(Fatal) perl(Exporter) [x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (ExtUtils-CppGuess-0.07.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. $ rpm -qp --provides perl-ExtUtils-CppGuess-0.07-2.fc19.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(ExtUtils::CppGuess) = 0.07 1 perl-ExtUtils-CppGuess = 0.07-2.fc1 Provides are ok $ rpm -qp --requires perl-ExtUtils-CppGuess-0.07-2.fc19.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2) 1 perl(Capture::Tiny) 1 perl(Config) 1 perl(File::Basename) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(warnings) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Requires are ok. $ rpmlint perl-ExtUtils-CppGuess-0.07-2.fc19.noarch.rpm perl-ExtUtils-CppGuess-0.07-2.fc19.src.rpm perl-ExtUtils-CppGuess.spec 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint is ok. MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/S/SM/SMUELLER/ExtUtils-CppGuess-0.07.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1cd83ee8452351219b987c79ddb25cc25ee8c396318ba36c5211a92b5c87e7a8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1cd83ee8452351219b987c79ddb25cc25ee8c396318ba36c5211a92b5c87e7a8 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (93e63af) last change: 2012-11-30 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 ISSUES ====== FIX: Add missing BR for tests (./t/lib/TestUtils.pm) perl(ExtUtils::Manifest) perl(File::Path) perl(File::Spec::Functions) perl(Cwd) perl(Fatal) perl(Exporter) TODO: Replace variable PERL_INSTALL_ROOT obsoleted with DESTDIR name in %install. TODO: Remove the deleting empty directories in %install section. This is default behavior. Please correct all 'FIX' issues, consider fixing 'TODO' items and provide new spec file. -- 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