https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064995 Leon Weber <leon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |leon@xxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Leon Weber <leon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This is an **INFORMAL** review: Possible issues =============== - Package probably should not own the dir %{perl_vendorlib}/File/, but its contents - %build section should likely use %{__perl} instead of perl - rm -rf %{buildroot} is no longer necessary - BuildRoot tag is unnecessary - %clean section is unnecessary Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/review/1064995-perl-File-Slurp- Tiny/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/File(perl-File-Which, perl-File-Listing) [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [?]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Note: except issues above [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. [x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -nu) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: perl-File-Slurp-Tiny-0.003-2.fc19.noarch.rpm perl-File-Slurp-Tiny-0.003-2.fc19.src.rpm perl-File-Slurp-Tiny.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) slurper -> slurped, slur per, slur-per perl-File-Slurp-Tiny.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) slurper -> slurped, slur per, slur-per 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint perl-File-Slurp-Tiny perl-File-Slurp-Tiny.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) slurper -> slurped, slur per, slur-per 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- perl-File-Slurp-Tiny (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.3) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Spec::Functions) perl(FileHandle) perl(strict) perl(warnings) Provides -------- perl-File-Slurp-Tiny: perl(File::Slurp::Tiny) perl-File-Slurp-Tiny Source checksums ---------------- http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/L/LE/LEONT/File-Slurp-Tiny-0.003.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ded61a7ab96db8c6a14466a5984091a60af9b384b3355d06aeaa6433ac977c02 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ded61a7ab96db8c6a14466a5984091a60af9b384b3355d06aeaa6433ac977c02 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1064995 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review