Bug 2418594

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9863298
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2418594-perl-chemistry-file-vrml/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09863298-perl-Chemistry-File-VRML/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Dear Dominik,

thanks for trying to bring this into Fedora! The review ticket is quite old meanwhile, but I guess you're still interested, right? There are also some similar tickets for perl-Chemistry-* packages in the pipeline - partly blocking each other. I'd do them later, if nobody else steps in.

This will be my first official package review, just as a warning ...

I haven't found any blocker, just one thing: as the package does not include a license file, I'm supposed to ask you if you already tried to make upstream aware of this: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

Otherwise package is fine.

OK, some missing things:

The %{_fixperms} macro only works with:

BuildRequires: coreutils

As tests are run during build the package Requires should be in BuildRequires as well (in the %if %{with check} block):

[host] ~/FedoraReview/2418594-perl-Chemistry-File-VRML/results % rpm -qpR perl-Chemistry-File-VRML-0.10-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
perl(Chemistry::File)
perl(Chemistry::Mol)
perl(POSIX)
perl(base)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)

Thanks for reviewing this Andreas.

Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Chemistry-File-VRML/perl-Chemistry-File-VRML.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Chemistry-File-VRML/perl-Chemistry-File-VRML-0.10-2.fc45.src.rpm
Description:

* Thu May 07 2026 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 0.10-2
- add missing BuildRequires

```
Package Review
==============

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



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

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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". 8 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/andreas/2418594-perl-Chemistry-File-VRML/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Chemistry(perl-Chemistry-Mol, perl-
     Chemistry-Bond-Find, perl-Chemistry-Canonicalize, perl-Chemistry-
     Pattern, perl-Chemistry-Isotope),
     /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Chemistry/File(perl-Chemistry-Mol)
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1056 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Perl:
[ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires.
[ ]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.

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

Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: perl-Chemistry-File-VRML-0.10-2.fc45.noarch.rpm
          perl-Chemistry-File-VRML-0.10-2.fc45.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp95496syo')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

perl-Chemistry-File-VRML.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Mol', '%description -l en_US Mol -> Mo, Moll, Moe')
perl-Chemistry-File-VRML.src: E: spelling-error ('Mol', '%description -l en_US Mol -> Mo, Moll, Moe')
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.9.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

perl-Chemistry-File-VRML.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Mol', '%description -l en_US Mol -> Mo, Moll, Moe')
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://cpan.metacpan.org/authors/id/I/IT/ITUB/Chemistry-File-VRML-0.10.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c1e5612c4ba3747d3225fdc436c79751d8011ae8c6e1dfc76c4bb4a80d2a99d0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1e5612c4ba3747d3225fdc436c79751d8011ae8c6e1dfc76c4bb4a80d2a99d0


Requires
--------
perl-Chemistry-File-VRML (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    perl(Chemistry::File)
    perl(Chemistry::Mol)
    perl(POSIX)
    perl(base)
    perl(strict)
    perl(warnings)
    perl-libs



Provides
--------
perl-Chemistry-File-VRML:
    perl(Chemistry::File::VRML)
    perl(Chemistry::File::VRML::PDB2VRML)
    perl-Chemistry-File-VRML



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/andreas/2418594-perl-Chemistry-File-VRML/srpm/perl-Chemistry-File-VRML.spec	2026-05-17 16:55:09.962415900 +0200
+++ /home/andreas/2418594-perl-Chemistry-File-VRML/srpm-unpacked/perl-Chemistry-File-VRML.spec	2026-05-07 02:00:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 2;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %bcond check 1
 
@@ -61,3 +71,9 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Thu May 07 2026 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 0.10-2
+- add missing BuildRequires
+
+* Wed Dec 03 2025 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 0.10-1
+- initial package
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2418594
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Perl, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, C/C++, PHP, Haskell, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
```

Spelling error can be ignored here. "Mol" is part of the package name it depends on. Package is a approved.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Chemistry-File-VRML
Monitoring:
Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`

FEDORA-2026-d377673d8e (perl-Chemistry-File-VRML-0.10-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-d377673d8e

FEDORA-2026-d377673d8e (perl-Chemistry-File-VRML-0.10-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.