Bug 997554

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

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

===== 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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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

Perl:
[!]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[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).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.


$ rpmlint/perl-Fennec.spec perl-Fennec-2.010-2.fc21.*rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint ok.

$ rpm -qp --provides ../results/perl-Fennec-2.010-2.fc21.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
      1 perl(Fennec) = 2.010
      1 perl(Fennec::Collector)
      1 perl(Fennec::Collector::TB)
      1 perl(Fennec::Collector::TB::TempFiles)
      1 perl(Fennec::Collector::TB::_Handle)
      1 perl(Fennec::EndRunner)
      1 perl(Fennec::Finder)
      1 perl(Fennec::Meta)
      1 perl(Fennec::Runner)
      1 perl(Fennec::Test)
      1 perl(Fennec::Util)
      1 perl(Test::Workflow)
      1 perl(Test::Workflow::Block)
      1 perl(Test::Workflow::Layer)
      1 perl(Test::Workflow::Meta)
      1 perl(Test::Workflow::Test)
      1 perl-Fennec = 2.010-2.fc21
Binary provides ok

$ rpm -qp --requires ../results/perl-Fennec-2.010-2.fc21.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
      1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.1)
      1 perl(B)
      1 perl(Carp)
      1 perl(Child)
      1 perl(Exporter::Declare)
      1 perl(Fennec::Collector)
      1 perl(Fennec::Collector::TB)
      1 perl(Fennec::Collector::TB::TempFiles)
      1 perl(Fennec::Runner)
      1 perl(Fennec::Test)
      1 perl(Fennec::Util)
      1 perl(File::Find)
      1 perl(File::Temp)
      1 perl(List::Util)
      1 perl(Mock::Quick) >= 1.106
      1 perl(Parallel::Runner)
      1 perl(Scalar::Util)
      1 perl(Test::Builder)
      1 perl(Test::Exception) >= 0.29
      1 perl(Test::More) >= 0.88
      1 perl(Test::Warn)
      1 perl(Test::Workflow::Block)
      1 perl(Test::Workflow::Layer)
      1 perl(Test::Workflow::Meta)
      1 perl(Test::Workflow::Test)
      1 perl(base)
      1 perl(strict)
      1 perl(utf8)
      1 perl(warnings)
      1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
      1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
      1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
      1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires ok



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/jplesnik/review/tmp/997554-perl-Fennec/srpm/perl-Fennec.spec  2013-09-02 12:32:44.381842503 +0200
+++ /home/jplesnik/review/tmp/997554-perl-Fennec/srpm-unpacked/perl-Fennec.spec 2013-08-15 16:59:34.000000000 +0200
@@ -58,5 +58,5 @@
 %install
 ./Build install destdir=%{buildroot} create_packlist=0
-%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}
+%{_fixperms} $R%{buildroot}

 %check


Source checksums
----------------
http://cpan.metacpan.org/authors/id/E/EX/EXODIST/Fennec-2.010.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 077a4ad2d9cdbc11246abe699d02f95796cf6ec5d1ff6f66b1edf8dc47525f74
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 077a4ad2d9cdbc11246abe699d02f95796cf6ec5d1ff6f66b1edf8dc47525f74


ISSUES:
FIX: If you use http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-Fennec/branches/fedora/perl-Fennec.spec
for import to git, then it is ok.
FIX: Add BR perl(lib) - ./t/MatchedT.t:5
FIX: Add BR perl(Data::Dumper) - ./t/Finder.t:7

Please correct all 'FIX' issues.

Otherwise package looks good.
APPROVED

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Fennec
Short Description: A tester's toolbox, and best friend
Owners: pghmcfc
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC: perl-sig

Thanks for the review again Jitka.

I do new imports from my local svn rather than SRPM so the $R typo will be gone. I'll fix the buildreqs post-import.

Git done (by process-git-requests).

perl-Fennec-2.010-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Fennec-2.010-3.fc19

perl-Fennec-2.010-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.