Bug 454102
Summary: | Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Model-XMLRPC - XMLRPC model class for Catalyst | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Chris Weyl <cweyl> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Miroslav Suchý <msuchy> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, mmaslano, msuchy, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | msuchy:
fedora-review+
huzaifas: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://search.cpan.org/dist/Catalyst-Model-XMLRPC/ | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2008-10-23 14:52:33 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 435835, 459933 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Chris Weyl
2008-07-04 16:40:36 UTC
Here is also problem with bz#455151. rpmlint srpm: perl-Catalyst-Model-XMLRPC.src:39: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep FOO=`perl -p -e 's|%{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}\S+||'` Since the perl-RPC-XML review ticket has been closed after ages of no response, perhaps you'd like to submit it so that this review can move forward. I have one I've been using; I'll post it for review once the infrastructure comes back online. There's no need to wait for my sake; I can review packages fine with the parts of the infrastructure that are currently running. Submitted bug 459933 for RPC::XML review; updating as blocking this bug. Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji Build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=817494 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. FAIL [1] + source files match upstream url 62db4b24d66a56b4f22187452e8ab9a6 Catalyst-Model-XMLRPC-0.04.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written FAIL [2] + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful! + Package perl-Filesys-Df-0.92-2.fc10 => Provides: perl(Catalyst::Helper::Model::XMLRPC) perl(Catalyst::Model::XMLRPC) = 0.04 perl-Catalyst-Model-XMLRPC = 0.04-1.fc10 Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(Carp) perl(Catalyst::Model) perl(NEXT) perl(RPC::XML) perl(RPC::XML::Client) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(warnings) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 [1] rpmlint -i perl-Catalyst-Model-XMLRPC-0.04-1.fc9.src.rpm perl-Catalyst-Model-XMLRPC.src:39: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep FOO=`perl -p -e 's|%{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}\S+||'` $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. [2] perl -pi -e \ 's|\$self->config\(\$config\)|\$self->config\(\$config\) if defined \$config|' \ lib/Catalyst/Model/XMLRPC.pm This is not propper way of patching source. Create patch and include load it using Patch1: pragma. I encourage you to send this patch to upstream as well. Please fix this two issues and then the review can be finished. Updated as requested: SRPM URL: http://fedora.biggerontheinside.net/review/perl-Catalyst-Model-XMLRPC-0.04-1.fc9.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://fedora.biggerontheinside.net/review/perl-Catalyst-Model-XMLRPC.spec Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=832049 You point to wrong src.rpm (-1 release) so I tried to download http://fedora.biggerontheinside.net/review/perl-Catalyst-Model-XMLRPC-0.04-2.fc9.src.rpm and it was there. So I'm using this in this comments. The [2] is ok. You are now using Patch0: But the [1] is still problem, you just mask the problem so rpmlint do not detect it. I do not understand why do you have this part there at all: # note we first filter out the bits in _docdir... cat << \EOF > %{name}-prov #!/bin/sh FOO=`perl -p -e 's|%{broot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}\S+||'` %{__perl_provides} $FOO EOF %define __perl_provides %{_builddir}/Catalyst-Model-XMLRPC-%{version}/%{name}-prov chmod +x %{__perl_provides} If I delete this lines and this one from %files: %doc Changes README t/ will replace with %doc Changes README I got the same output (with same provides). You should not install content of t/ dir anyway. (In reply to comment #8) > But the [1] is still problem, you just mask the problem so rpmlint do not > detect it. I do not understand why do you have this part there at all: [1] was a false positive by rpmlint. %{buildroot} isn't being "used" in %prep so much as embedded into the provides filtering script... This is not an error. Swizzling the value into %{broot} simply keeps rpmlint from wearning about an error that isn't. So long as rpm insists on doing provides/requires detection in %{_docdir}, it's going to be easier and more consistent to prevent the content of that directory from being scanned to begin with. (As a side note, I didn't realize a RFE to remove %{_docdir} scannning from autoprov/req hadn't been filed... filed now as bug 463461.) But why you include t/ in %doc in first place? There is no documentation in that test. And test alone should not be packed (however no policy define it - it is just common habit). And if you do not include t/ => you will not get the false provides => you must not do that magic with %{__perl_provides} => you will get rid of that warning propper way. I try to consistently include the tests in %doc for a number of reasons -- one, I don't know what someone else might find useful, two even if there's no explicit documentation example usage is never a bad things, and finally, even if the the test suite comprises one test (say a use test), then at least the person looking under %_docdir can see that. RPM shouldn't be generating requires/provides on files under %_docdir, but it does, so until then the filtering magic is necessary. ...and I suspect it's commonplace enough that we can call it "science" now :) I consult this issue with my sponsor and he said that the it is ok. APPROVED. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Catalyst-Model-XMLRPC Short Description: XMLRPC model class for Catalyst Owners: cweyl Branches: F-8, F-9, devel InitialCC: perl-sig cvs done Imported and built in devel. Thanks for the review! :) |