https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127720 Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Review ====== rpmlint ------- perl-MooX-ConfigFromFile.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) eXtension -> extension, extensions, ex tension perl-MooX-ConfigFromFile.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) config -> con fig, con-fig, configure perl-MooX-ConfigFromFile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure Requires -------- perl(Config::Any) perl(File::Find::Rule) perl(File::Find::Rule) >= 0.30 perl(FindBin) perl(Moo) >= 1.003 perl(Moo::Role) perl(MooX::File::ConfigDir) >= 0.002 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::ConfigFromFile) = 0.002 perl(MooX::ConfigFromFile::ConfigData) perl(MooX::ConfigFromFile::Role) = 0.002 perl-MooX-ConfigFromFile = 0.002-1.fc22 Review Checklist ---------------- - rpmlint only moans about technical spellings, so no problem there - package and spec file naming OK - package meets guidlines - license is same as perl, which is fine for Fedora and matches the spec - no upstream license file to include in package - spec file written in English and is legible - sources match upstream - package builds OK in mock for Rawhide x86_64 - buildreqs seem complete - no locales, libraries, devel files, sub-packages, desktop files etc. to concern us - package is not intended to be relocatable - directory ownership is fine - no duplicate files - permissions are sane - macro usage is consistent, though I don't really see what advantage the use of %{__perl} brings these days - code, not content - no large docs to worry about - docs don't affect runtime - filenames are all ASCII - no scriptlets to consider Notes ----- Filtering of unversioned dependencies isn't working properly due to missing '%': -%global __requires_exclude %{?__requires_exclude:__requires_exclude|}^perl\\(File::Find::Rule\\)$ -%global __requires_exclude %{?__requires_exclude:__requires_exclude|}^perl\\(Moo\\)$ -%global __requires_exclude %{?__requires_exclude:__requires_exclude|}^perl\\(MooX::File::ConfigDir\\)$ +%global __requires_exclude %{?__requires_exclude:%__requires_exclude|}^perl\\(File::Find::Rule\\)$ +%global __requires_exclude %{?__requires_exclude:%__requires_exclude|}^perl\\(Moo\\)$ +%global __requires_exclude %{?__requires_exclude:%__requires_exclude|}^perl\\(MooX::File::ConfigDir\\)$ Using "--" Build options would make the package forward-compatible with Module::Build::Tiny, should upstream ever decide to switch to that: %{__perl} Build.PL --installdirs=vendor ./Build install --destdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT --create_packlist=0 I prefer to see a more specific list of files/directories in the %files list as this offers some protection against upstream accidentally bundling something and us accidentally shipping it as a result - reducing the scope of wildcards can help flag this sort of thing at package build time None of those are blockers; take what you will from those suggestions. 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