Bug 1000028 - Review Request: perl-IO-Pipely - Portably create pipe() or pipe-like handles, one way or another
Review Request: perl-IO-Pipely - Portably create pipe() or pipe-like handles,...
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jitka Plesnikova
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 999367
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2013-08-22 10:06 EDT by Petr Šabata
Modified: 2014-10-13 17:36 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: perl-IO-Pipely-0.005-4.el7
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-09-05 04:59:51 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
psabata: fedora‑review+
limburgher: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Petr Šabata 2013-08-22 10:06:37 EDT
Spec URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-IO-Pipely/perl-IO-Pipely.spec
SRPM URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-IO-Pipely/perl-IO-Pipely-0.005-1.fc19.src.rpm
IO::Pipely provides a couple functions to portably create one- and two-way
pipes and pipe-like socket pairs. It acknowledges and works around known
platform issues so you don't have to. 
Fedora Account System Username: psabata
Comment 1 Jitka Plesnikova 2013-08-22 10:45:46 EDT
Package Review

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

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-]: 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
[x]: 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 3 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

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

[x]: 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
[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
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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 =====

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

$ rpmlint ./perl-IO-Pipely.spec ../results/perl-IO-Pipely-0.005-1.fc21.*
perl-IO-Pipely.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Portably -> Port ably, Port-ably, Portable
perl-IO-Pipely.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US portably -> portable, port ably, port-ably
perl-IO-Pipely.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Portably -> Port ably, Port-ably, Portable
perl-IO-Pipely.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US portably -> portable, port ably, port-ably
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint ok

$ rpm -qp --provides perl-IO-Pipely-0.005-1.fc21.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
      1 perl(IO::Pipely) = 0.005
      1 perl-IO-Pipely = 0.005-1.fc21
Binary provides ok.

$ rpm -qp --requires perl-IO-Pipely-0.005-1.fc21.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
      1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.1)
      1 perl(Errno)
      1 perl(Exporter) >= 5.68
      1 perl(Fcntl) >= 1.06
      1 perl(IO::Socket) >= 1.31
      1 perl(Symbol) >= 1.06
      1 perl(base) >= 2.18
      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

Source checksums
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/R/RC/RCAPUTO/IO-Pipely-0.005.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e33b6cf5cb2b46ee308513f51e623987a50a89901e81bf19701dce35179f2e74
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e33b6cf5cb2b46ee308513f51e623987a50a89901e81bf19701dce35179f2e74

The package is good.
Comment 2 Petr Šabata 2013-08-22 10:58:52 EDT
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: perl-IO-Pipely
Short Description: Portably create pipe() or pipe-like handles, one way or another
Owners: psabata jplesnik ppisar
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC: perl-sig
Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-08-22 11:26:21 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 4 Petr Šabata 2013-08-22 11:30:22 EDT
Thank you both.
Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2013-08-23 04:49:41 EDT
perl-IO-Pipely-0.005-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2013-09-04 21:32:46 EDT
perl-IO-Pipely-0.005-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
Comment 7 Denis Fateyev 2014-09-18 09:28:35 EDT
Package Change Request
Package Name: perl-IO-Pipely
New Branches: epel7
Owners: dfateyev
InitialCC: perl-sig
Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-09-18 11:03:36 EDT
Comments from the primary maintainers?
Comment 9 Petr Šabata 2014-09-22 11:45:50 EDT
I'm fine with Denis maintaining the EPEL branch.
Comment 10 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-09-25 11:25:55 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2014-09-25 17:38:43 EDT
perl-IO-Pipely-0.005-4.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2014-10-13 17:36:45 EDT
perl-IO-Pipely-0.005-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.