Bug 226239

 OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
 OK - Spec file matches base package name.
 OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
 OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
 XX-  License is GPL or Artistic ok?
 OK - License field in spec matches
 XX- License file included in package  -- no license included
 OK - Spec in American English
 OK - Spec is legible.
 OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
 OK - BuildRequires correct
 OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
 OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
 OK - Package has correct buildroot
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 OK - Package is code or permissible content.
 OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
 OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
 OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
 OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
SHOULD Items:
 OK - Should build in mock.
 OK - Should build on all supported archs
 OK - Should function as described.
 OK - Should have sane scriptlets.
 OK - Should have dist tag
 OK - Should package latest version


Issues: 
XX - No rpmlint output

[builder@rawhide SRPMS]$ rpmlint -i perl-Archive-Tar-1.30-1.src.rpm
W: perl-Archive-Tar mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 3)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a
cosmetic annoyance.  Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.

 XX-  License is GPL or Artistic ok?
 XX- License file included in package  -- no license included

As tibbs pointed out to us on IRC today, the license is included in the POD for
this package:

http://search.cpan.org/~kane/Archive-Tar-1.30/lib/Archive/Tar.pm#COPYRIGHT

Or 'perldoc Archive::Tar' on a system with the package installed.

'GPL or Artistic' is standard for most CPAN modules.

 XX - No rpmlint output
Should be fixed with perl-Archive-Tar-1.30-2.fc7.src.rpm, available soon.


Thanks for the review!

> the license is included in the POD for this package:
This is standared for most CPAN dist.

> 'GPL or Artistic' is standard for most CPAN modules.
This is the shortcut we once had agreed upon to use, when a perl-module's
copyright carries license notice of this kind:

"This library is free software; you may redistribute and/or modify it under the
same terms as Perl itself."

So licensing-wise this package seems OK.

Wrt. to license files we once also had agreed upon NOT to require detached
license files, unless the package contains one. i.e. if a perl-module contains
one you MUST add it to %doc, if not you don't have to add one.

So. both rpmlint complains are void.

Looks good, built and tested on rawhide.  Marking Approved. 

Hi,

A couple more items that could be addressed are:

 * find options order: -depth before -type

   Avoids the warning: "find: warning: you have specified the -depth option
after a non-option argument -type, but options are not positional (-depth
affects tests specified before it as well as those specified after it).  Please
specify options before other arguments."

 * check section: remove the '|| :'

   The characters '|| :' were only meaningful for rpm < 4.2
   (they prevented a bash error as the %check scriptlet was only
    added in rpm 4.2)
 
 * perl build requirement

   Not necessary as the current build root includes the perl package
  (rpm-build requirment).

jpo

jpo: Ok, your fixes are incorporated into 1.30-3 - let me know if anything seems
amiss.

Everything looks good, but I do this is changelog is odd.  I don't know if it is
common policy to go back and fix something like this or not. 


* Wed Jul 12 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - sh: line 0: fg: no job
control

It is ok to correct changelogs after the fact, especially in that case.

The changelog entry should have been:

< * Wed Jul 12 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - sh: line 0: fg: no job
control
---
> * Wed Jul 12 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 1.29-1.1


Note: Almost every core package has a similar changelog entry (a script used for
one of the mass FC-6 rebuilds mishaved).

Ok, fixed the changelog in -4.

Closing this ticket (everything mentioned has been corrected).

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Archive-TAR
Short Description: A module for Perl manipulation of .tar files
Owners: mmaslano psabata ppisar
Branches: devel
InitialCC: perl-sig

Please re-open this cvs for latest version of Archive::Tar. Also it's needed un-kill this package from database.

I'm confused. 

This package is renaming upstream from 
perl-Archive-Tar to perl-Archive-TAR?

Or what is going on here?

if it's a rename you need to submit the new package for review.

That's typo. Correct request:

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Archive-Tar
Short Description: A module for Perl manipulation of .tar files
Owners: mmaslano psabata ppisar
Branches: devel
InitialCC: perl-sig

It was marked as dead and I need re-open this cvs in devel branch.

I see a devel branch... just import the src.rpm and file a rel-eng ticket to 
get it unblocked.

This package is missing `perl-sig' in InitialCC: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/perl-Archive-Tar

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: perl-Archive-Tar
New Branches: f14 f15 f16 
InitialCC: perl-sig


As noted in comment #16, `perl-sig' user is missing watchbugzilla and watchcommits roles which is required by Perl Fedora packaging guidelines. Please add this pseudo-user with these two permissions into all Fedora branches. Please note this action cannot be proceeded by regular package owner as public Koji interface does not support it.

Please list an owner.

Keep owners as they are. The branches already exist. I only need to add the one user.

I can't add the user in SCM, users are managed via pkgdb.  I don't have the ability in pkgdb to add a user to a package, that user will need to request the desired access there and have it approved by someone with approveacls on that package, which includes myself.