Bug 974559

from build.log:

  + ./Build test
  t/00use.t .................... ok
  t/01future.t ................. ok
  t/02cancel.t ................. ok
  t/03followed_by.t ............ ok
  t/04and_then.t ............... ok
  t/05or_else.t ................ ok
  t/06then.t ................... ok
  t/07transform.t .............. ok
  t/10wait_all.t ............... ok
  t/11wait_any.t ............... ok
  t/12needs_all.t .............. ok
  t/13needs_any.t .............. ok
  t/20subclass.t ............... ok
  t/21debug.t .................. ok
  t/30utils-repeat.t ........... ok
  t/31utils-repeat-generate.t .. ok
  t/32utils-repeat-foreach.t ... ok
  t/99pod.t .................... skipped: Test::Pod 1.00 required for testing POD

---> You should consider adding `BuildRequires:  perl(Test::Pod)`
     having all tests in testsuite run and (hopefully) pass.

Package is fine, but the missing BRs for last item of testsuite.

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

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



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

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]: 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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the 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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/974559-perl-
     Future/licensecheck.txt

     ---> License-tag is correct, says: GPL+ or Artistic

[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 7 files.

     ---> just std-%doc

[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[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: No rpmlint messages.

Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     ---> missing BR, as in comment #1

[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

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

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: perl-Future-0.13-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint perl-Future
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
perl-Future (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.3)
    perl(Carp)
    perl(Exporter)
    perl(Scalar::Util)
    perl(constant)
    perl(strict)
    perl(warnings)



Provides
--------
perl-Future:
    perl(Future)
    perl(Future::Utils)
    perl-Future



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/P/PE/PEVANS/Future-0.13.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5ffa36abdb57b507a8aba2e96751c40b7436c72bfdbdf512268a9e2126face1b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5ffa36abdb57b507a8aba2e96751c40b7436c72bfdbdf512268a9e2126face1b


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 974559

######

Add the missing BRs (comment #1) for testsuite and I'll happily grant review.

(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #1)
> 
> ---> You should consider adding `BuildRequires:  perl(Test::Pod)`
>      having all tests in testsuite run and (hopefully) pass.

You're right.
I've added the BR and updated the package.

Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Future/perl-Future.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Future/perl-Future-0.13-2.fc18.src.rpm

Building in mock shows this:

t/99pod.t .................... ok
All tests successful.
Files=18, Tests=363,  1 wallclock secs ( 0.09 usr  0.02 sys +  0.92 cusr  0.11 csys =  1.14 CPU)
Result: PASS

SRPM URL returns 404...

(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #4)
> SRPM URL returns 404...

This works much better when I upload the package.

Indeed! :)  Testsuite now passed all test!

APPROVED!

Thank you for the review, Björn.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Future
Short Description: Perl object system to represent an operation awaiting completion
Owners: eseyman
Branches: f19 f18
InitialCC: perl-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

perl-Future-0.13-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Future-0.13-2.fc19

perl-Future-0.13-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Future-0.13-2.fc18

Thank you for the git repo, Jon.

Björn, thanks again. All told, this is probably the fastest perl module submission I've ever made.

perl-Future-0.13-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

perl-Future-0.13-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

perl-Future-0.13-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.