Bug 2060852

- I was about to write there was a missing comment above the patch but the comment is above the line applying it. Not a big deal, but I'm used to see such comment above the PatchX: line.

- Use %make_build/%make_install

Otherwise, a fedora-review run looks good.

(In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #1)
> - I was about to write there was a missing comment above the patch but the
> comment is above the line applying it. Not a big deal, but I'm used to see
> such comment above the PatchX: line.

I put it there because it feels more natural to me to put the comment at the point where the patch is applied rather than where it's declared.

> - Use %make_build/%make_install

That would normally go with use of ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.76 but that's not available in EL-7 so I preferred to keep it this way so I could use the same spec everywhere. Once EL-7 goes EOL I'll probably update all of the packages I look after to use the new style.

Ok, understood and agreed.


rpmlint output is clean.


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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", "The Perl 5 License GNU General Public
     License, Version 1", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "The Perl 5
     License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 19 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/xavierb/2060852-perl-Crypt-
     Curve25519/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: 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/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt(perl-Crypt-Cracklib, perl-Crypt-
     MySQL, perl-Crypt-DES, perl-Crypt-Eksblowfish, perl-Crypt-IDEA, perl-
     Crypt-OpenSSL-EC, perl-Crypt-Rijndael, perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-DSA, perl-
     Crypt-GCrypt, perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random, perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-PKCS10,
     perl-CryptX, perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-ECDSA, perl-Crypt-ScryptKDF, perl-
     Crypt-OpenSSL-AES, perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509, perl-Crypt-Twofish, perl-
     Crypt-OpenSSL-Bignum, perl-Crypt-DH-GMP, perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS,
     perl-Crypt-RC4-XS, perl-Crypt-SMIME, perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-RSA, perl-
     Crypt-SSLeay, perl-Crypt-Blowfish),
     /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Crypt(perl-Crypt-Cracklib, perl-
     Crypt-MySQL, perl-Crypt-DES, perl-Crypt-Eksblowfish, perl-Crypt-IDEA,
     perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-EC, perl-Crypt-Rijndael, perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-DSA,
     perl-Crypt-GCrypt, perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random, perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-
     PKCS10, perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-ECDSA, perl-Crypt-ScryptKDF, perl-Crypt-
     OpenSSL-AES, perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509, perl-Crypt-Twofish, perl-Crypt-
     OpenSSL-Bignum, perl-Crypt-DH-GMP, perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS, perl-
     Crypt-RC4-XS, perl-Crypt-SMIME, perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-RSA, perl-Crypt-
     SSLeay, perl-Crypt-Blowfish)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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]: 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Unversioned so-files
--------------------
perl-Crypt-Curve25519: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Crypt/Curve25519/Curve25519.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://cpan.metacpan.org/modules/by-module/Crypt/Crypt-Curve25519-0.06.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9f48703db4eeca296ea82c2d66e4a139f2270b8dfb0bedfc4ff94454bb7b20c7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9f48703db4eeca296ea82c2d66e4a139f2270b8dfb0bedfc4ff94454bb7b20c7


Requires
--------
perl-Crypt-Curve25519 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libperl.so.5.34()(64bit)
    perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.34.0)
    perl(Carp)
    perl(Exporter)
    perl(XSLoader)
    perl(strict)
    perl(warnings)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

perl-Crypt-Curve25519-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

perl-Crypt-Curve25519-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
perl-Crypt-Curve25519:
    perl(Crypt::Curve25519)
    perl-Crypt-Curve25519
    perl-Crypt-Curve25519(x86-64)

perl-Crypt-Curve25519-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    perl-Crypt-Curve25519-debuginfo
    perl-Crypt-Curve25519-debuginfo(x86-64)

perl-Crypt-Curve25519-debugsource:
    perl-Crypt-Curve25519-debugsource
    perl-Crypt-Curve25519-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2060852
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Perl, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, R, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Package approved.

Thanks Xavier.

$ fedpkg request-repo perl-Crypt-Curve25519 2060852
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/42753
$ fedpkg request-branch --repo perl-Crypt-Curve25519 f36
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/42754
$ fedpkg request-branch --repo perl-Crypt-Curve25519 f35
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/42755
$ fedpkg request-branch --repo perl-Crypt-Curve25519 f34
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/42756
$ fedpkg request-branch --repo perl-Crypt-Curve25519 epel9
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/42757
$ fedpkg request-branch --repo perl-Crypt-Curve25519 epel8
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/42758
$ fedpkg request-branch --repo perl-Crypt-Curve25519 epel7
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/42759

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Crypt-Curve25519

FEDORA-2022-cb11ef3ae7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cb11ef3ae7

FEDORA-2022-e6607a60a4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e6607a60a4

FEDORA-2022-e6e44dfecc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e6e44dfecc

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1c091fea4a has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1c091fea4a

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-6eb63c2589 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-6eb63c2589

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c794697aeb has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c794697aeb

FEDORA-2022-cb11ef3ae7 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-cb11ef3ae7 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cb11ef3ae7

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-e6607a60a4 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-e6607a60a4 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e6607a60a4

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1c091fea4a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1c091fea4a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-6eb63c2589 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-6eb63c2589

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-e6e44dfecc has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-e6e44dfecc \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e6e44dfecc

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c794697aeb has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c794697aeb

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-e6607a60a4 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-e6e44dfecc has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c794697aeb has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1c091fea4a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-6eb63c2589 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-cb11ef3ae7 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.