https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1788170 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- The standalone spec file differs seems to be newer than the archived one. I will use the standalone one for this review. URL and Source0 addresses are usable. Ok. The Source0 archive (SHA-256: 21886ee5eb129c595455bccb4a9ab146445b1ac4c558932cf462bade9273133d) is original. Ok. Summary verified from lib/Hash/DefHash.pm. Ok. TODO: The description is not very explaining. Please add at least a link to DefHash specification <https://metacpan.org/pod/DefHash> to the description. License verified from README, lib/Hash/DefHash.pm, LICENSE, and Makefile.PL. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. TODO: Constrain 'perl(Exporter)' dependency with '>= 5.57' (META.json:35). Test::Pod::Coverage, Pod::Coverage::TrustPod, Test::Perl::Critic, Test::Pod are not used. Ok. FIX: Build-require 'perl(blib)' for tests (t/00-compile.t:20). All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-Hash-DefHash.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Hash-DefHash-0.071-2.fc32.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Hash-DefHash-0.071-2.fc32.noarch.rpm sh: /usr/bin/python2: No such file or directory 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint is Ok. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Hash-DefHash-0.071-2.fc32.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jan 9 09:51 /usr/share/doc/perl-Hash-DefHash -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1211 Jan 4 01:09 /usr/share/doc/perl-Hash-DefHash/Changes -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6546 Jan 4 01:09 /usr/share/doc/perl-Hash-DefHash/README drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jan 9 09:51 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Hash-DefHash -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18457 Jan 4 01:09 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Hash-DefHash/LICENSE -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3543 Jan 9 09:51 /usr/share/man/man3/Hash::DefHash.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jan 9 09:51 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Hash -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 15916 Jan 4 01:09 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Hash/DefHash.pm File layout and permissions are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Hash-DefHash-0.071-2.fc32.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.30.1) 1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.10.1 1 perl(Exporter) 1 perl(Scalar::Util) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(String::Trim::More) 1 perl(warnings) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 TODO: Constrain 'perl(Exporter)' run-time dependency with '>= 5.57' (META.json:35). This is usually done by writing the dependency explicitly 'Requires: perl(Exporter) >= 5.57' into the spec file and the filtering out the unversioned one that was automatically generated by adding '%global __requires_exclude %{?__requires_exclude:%{__requires_exclude}|}^perl\\(Exporter)\\)$' just before %description section. See <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/>. This is to keep the dependency list free from duplicates and thus minimizing repository metadata. Another option is to patch the sources like this: - use Exporter qw(import); + use Exporter 1.15 qw(import); $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Hash-DefHash-0.071-2.fc32.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl(Hash::DefHash) = 0.071 1 perl-Hash-DefHash = 0.071-2.fc32 Binary provides are Ok. $ resolvedeps f32-build ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Hash-DefHash-0.071-2.fc32.noarch.rpm Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok. The package builds in F32 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=40312018). Ok. Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Please correct the 'FIX' item, consider fixing the 'TODO' items and provide a new spec file. Resolution: Package NOT 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
