Bug 497686 (perl-Archive-RPM)

Summary: Review Request: perl-Archive-RPM - Work with an RPM
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Chris Weyl <cweyl>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Iain Arnell <iarnell>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review, iarnell, notting
Target Milestone: ---Flags: iarnell: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Archive-RPM
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-05-02 03:51:56 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:    
Bug Blocks: 484485    

Description Chris Weyl 2009-04-26 07:33:33 UTC
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Archive-RPM.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Archive-RPM-0.04-1.fc10.src.rpm

Description:
Archive::RPM provides a more complete method of accessing an RPM's meta-
and actual data. We access this information by leveraging RPM2 where we
can, and by "exploding" the rpm with rpm2cpio and cpio when we need
information we can't get through RPM2.

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1321073

*rt-0.07

Comment 1 Iain Arnell 2009-04-26 08:44:15 UTC
+ source files match upstream.  
  54cc46c5e670796ebd2134f83b0d8a346bfb447c  Archive-RPM-0.04.tar.gz

+ package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
+ summary is OK.
+ description is OK.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is OK.
+ license field matches the actual license.
  LGPLv2+
 
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ license text not included upstream.
+ latest version is being packaged.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ compiler flags are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
+ package builds in mock
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1321073

+ package installs properly.
+ rpmlint has no complaints:
  perl-Archive-RPM.noarch: I: checking
  perl-Archive-RPM.src: I: checking
  2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

+ final provides and requires are sane:
  perl(Archive::RPM) = 0.04
  perl(Archive::RPM::ChangeLogEntry) = 0.04
  perl-Archive-RPM = 0.04-1.fc12

=
  cpio  
  perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)  
  perl(Archive::RPM::ChangeLogEntry)  
  perl(DateTime)  
  perl(English)  
  perl(File::Temp)  
  perl(Moose)  
  perl(MooseX::AttributeHelpers)  
  perl(MooseX::Types::DateTimeX)  
  perl(MooseX::Types::Path::Class)  
  perl(Path::Class)  
  perl(RPM2) >= 0.67
  perl(namespace::clean)  
  perl(overload)  
  rpm  
  rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1

+ %check is present and all tests pass.
  t/00-load.t ........... ok
  t/100-archive-rpm.t ... ok
  t/101-archive-srpm.t .. ok
  t/102-changelog.t ..... ok
  All tests successful.
  Files=4, Tests=28,  5 wallclock secs ( 0.05 usr  0.01 sys +  4.67 cusr  0.49 csys =  5.22 CPU)
  Result: PASS

+ no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
+ owns the directories it creates.
+ doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ no generically named files
+ code, not content.
+ documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
+ %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.


APPROVED

Comment 2 Chris Weyl 2009-04-27 16:02:19 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Archive-RPM
Short Description: Work with an RPM
Owners: cweyl
Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 devel
InitialCC: perl-sig

Comment 3 Kevin Fenzi 2009-04-29 03:11:00 UTC
cvs done.

Comment 4 Chris Weyl 2009-05-02 03:51:56 UTC
Thanks for the review! :-)