https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=992951 Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx Docs Contact| |paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- rpmlint output ============== $ rpmlint ~/perl-MooX-Types-MooseLike-0.25-1.fc20.* perl-MooX-Types-MooseLike.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parameterizable -> parameter perl-MooX-Types-MooseLike.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parameterizable -> parameter 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Nothing to worry about there. requires ======== perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.0) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) >= 5.57 perl(List::Util) perl(Module::Runtime) perl(Module::Runtime) >= 0.012 perl(MooX::Types::MooseLike) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(strict) perl(warnings) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 provides ======== perl(MooX::Types::MooseLike) = 0.25 perl(MooX::Types::MooseLike::Base) = 0.25 perl-MooX-Types-MooseLike = 0.25-1.fc20 review checklist ================ - rpmlint OK - package and spec file naming OK - package meets guidelines - license is same as perl, OK for Fedora and correctly specified in spec - upstream did not include a license file to package - spec file written in English and is legible - source file matches upstream - package builds OK in mock for Rawhide x86_64 - buildreqs mostly OK but see below - no libraries, locale data, devel files etc. to worry about - package is not intended to be relocatable - directory ownership OK - no duplicate files - permissions are sane - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - no large docs - docs don't affect runtime - not a GUI app, no desktop file needed - all filenames are ASCII - no scriptlets present or needed - no subpackages present or needed - requires/provides OK Nits: The Test::More version requirement of this package means that it won't even build for EPEL-6, so there's no point in including various bits of boilerplate that are only needed for EPEL-5 support: * BuildRoot specification * Emptying the buildroot at the start of %install * Having a %clean section * The default %defattr(-,root,root,-) isn't even needed for EPEL-5 There's never a need to remove empty directories from the buildroot. I don't really see the value to end users of including META.json. The usual convention these days is to use DESTDIR rather than PERL_INSTALL_ROOT. If you want to explicitly require Module::Runtime ≥ 0.012, you should probably filter the automatically-generated dependency on Module::Runtime (any version): %global __provides_exclude ^perl\\(Module::Runtime\\)$ For completeness, the following are also needed as they are used either by the module or its test suite: BuildRequires: perl(Carp) BuildRequires: perl(Exporter) >= 5.57 BuildRequires: perl(IO::Handle) BuildRequires: perl(List::Util) BuildRequires: perl(Moo::Role) BuildRequires: perl(overload) BuildRequires: perl(Role::Tiny) BuildRequires: perl(Scalar::Util) BuildRequires: perl(strict) BuildRequires: perl(warnings) There's also an argument for having a runtime dependency on perl(Moose::Util::TypeConstraints), but as that would pull in Moose, there's also a good argument for not including it. It's probably better for users that need that functionality to require it themselves. None of these are blockers. APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=txVaRl8muM&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review