[Bug 1128045] Review Request: perl-IO-Tee - Multiplex output to multiple output handles

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128045

Randall "Randy" Berry <randyn3lrx@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |randyn3lrx@xxxxxxxxx
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |randyn3lrx@xxxxxxxxx
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Randall "Randy" Berry <randyn3lrx@xxxxxxxxx> ---
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.

    License text contained in README file

    "COPYRIGHT"
    "Copyright (c) 1998-2001 Chung-chieh Shan. All rights reserved. This
    program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
    under the same terms as Perl itself."


[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. Lic. contained in README file.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/IO
     (perl-IO-Socket-SSL, perl-IO-HTML, perl-IO-Socket-IP)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: 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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[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:
[x]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
     Left as packager intends to package for EPEL5.

[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
     Left as packager intends to package for EPEL5.

[?]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
     diff). NOTE: Complies with Fedora's naming guidlines for perl modules. 
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

SRPM was built for F20. Package for review should be filed for rawhide.
Package does successfully build for rawhide.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: perl-IO-Tee-0.64-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          perl-IO-Tee-0.64-1.fc20.src.rpm
perl-IO-Tee.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printf -> print,
prints, print f
perl-IO-Tee.noarch: W: invalid-license CHECK
perl-IO-Tee.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printf -> print,
prints, print f
perl-IO-Tee.src: W: invalid-license CHECK
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint perl-IO-Tee
perl-IO-Tee.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printf -> print,
prints, print f
perl-IO-Tee.noarch: W: invalid-license CHECK
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/rberry/Downloads/1128045-perl-IO-Tee/srpm/perl-IO-Tee.spec   
2014-08-11 22:00:05.315777290 -0400
+++ /home/rberry/Downloads/1128045-perl-IO-Tee/srpm-unpacked/perl-IO-Tee.spec  
 2014-08-08 03:17:50.000000000 -0400
@@ -3,5 +3,5 @@
 Release:        1%{?dist}
 Summary:        Multiplex output to multiple output handles
-License:        GPL+ or Artistic
+License:        CHECK(GPL+ or Artistic)
 Group:          Development/Libraries
 URL:            http://search.cpan.org/dist/IO-Tee/


Requires
--------
perl-IO-Tee (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    perl
    perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.2)
    perl(Carp)
    perl(IO::File)
    perl(IO::Handle)
    perl(Symbol)
    perl(strict)
    perl(vars)



Provides
--------
perl-IO-Tee:
    perl(IO::Tee)
    perl-IO-Tee



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/K/KE/KENSHAN/IO-Tee-0.64.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
3ed276b1c2d3511338653c2532e73753d284943c1a8f5159ff37fecc2b345ed6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
3ed276b1c2d3511338653c2532e73753d284943c1a8f5159ff37fecc2b345ed6


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1128045
Buildroot used: fedora-20-i386
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

Looks OK to me.


== Approved ==

-- 
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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]