Bug 998434

Package Review
==============
Key:
[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.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: 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 does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: 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]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

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

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Invalid buildroot found:
     %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -nu)
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[?]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.


$ rpmlint perl-Perl6-Caller.spec perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.fc21.*
perl-Perl6-Caller.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filename -> file name, file-name, filament
perl-Perl6-Caller.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perldoc -> periodic
perl-Perl6-Caller.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filename -> file name, file-name, filament
perl-Perl6-Caller.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perldoc -> periodic
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint ok

$ rpm -qp --provides ../results/perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.fc21.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
      1 perl(Perl6::Caller) = 0.100
      1 perl-Perl6-Caller = 0.100-2.fc21
Binary provides ok

$ rpm -qp --requires ../results/perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.fc21.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
      1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.1)
      1 perl(overload)
      1 perl(strict)
      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


MD5-sum check
-------------
http://cpan.metacpan.org/authors/id/O/OV/OVID/Perl6-Caller-0.100.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : be18c1a3f86f7881da560a87902810e7613fd5da128dad49e3cf7ed6e337daa3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : be18c1a3f86f7881da560a87902810e7613fd5da128dad49e3cf7ed6e337daa3


Issues:
TODO: Remove BuildRoot tag.
TODO: Drop removing of buildroot. It is not needed now.
TODO: Remove %clean section.

Please consider fixing 'TODO' items.

Otherwise package looks good.
APPROVED

It's not 'consider', it's MUST

(In reply to Jitka Plesnikova from comment #1)
> Issues:
> TODO: Remove BuildRoot tag.
> TODO: Drop removing of buildroot. It is not needed now.
> TODO: Remove %clean section.
> 
> Please consider fixing 'TODO' items.

These are needed for EL-5 support.

> Otherwise package looks good.
> APPROVED

Thanks for the review again Jitka.

(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2)
> It's not 'consider', it's MUST

Yes, it's a MUST for EL-5 support:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean

  The %clean section is not required for F-13 and above. Each package
  for F-12 and below (or EPEL 5) MUST have a %clean section, which
  contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Perl6-Caller
Short Description: OO caller() interface
Owners: pghmcfc
Branches: F-19 F-20
InitialCC: perl-sig

Whoops, forgot some branches:

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Perl6-Caller
Short Description: OO caller() interface
Owners: pghmcfc
Branches: f18 f19 f20 el5 el6
InitialCC: perl-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.fc19

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: perl-Perl6-Caller
New Branches: f18 el5 el6
Owners: pghmcfc
InitialCC: perl-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.fc18

perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.el6

perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.el5

perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.

perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

*** Bug 1019630 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***