[Bug 1368790] Review Request: perl-App-PFT - Hacker friendly static blog generator, command line utilities

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368790



--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Suggestions:
 As per current packaging guidelines given on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

1) use %global instead of %define, See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define

2) From README.md and COPYING and few files containing headers, shows this perl
module is in GPLv3+ license so use 
License:    GPLv3+

3) If you just look on your system for this file
/etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-perl.spec , you will find the most updated spec
file template for perl packaging.
According to that you should include following as your package is noarch type

BuildRequires:  perl
BuildRequires:  perl-generators

4) Your %build should be (as this is noarch package)
%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}

5) In %install, following is now optional and should be removed
rm -rf %{buildroot}

as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

6) I see rpmlint on binary rpm shows permissions issue, its good to use same
lines from spec template for %install as

%install
make pure_install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} ';'
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null ';'
%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*

7) usage of mv should be avoided and instead that use "install

8) The %files section should look like
%files
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
%license COPYING
%doc README.md
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man1/*.1*
%{_bindir}/pft
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/pft-clean
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/pft-edit
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/pft-grab
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/pft-init
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/pft-ls
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/pft-make
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/pft-pub
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/pft-show

9) Another thing, the %prep can also be used here as
%prep
%autosetup -n %{module}-%{version} -p1

I wonder you being the upstream developer, why not applied yet patchbase0 in
upstream code and released any new tarball?


Fix above issues and increase the release tag and add appropriate changelog
information and provide updated SPEC and SRPM links again for further update of
this package.

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




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