Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Data-Perl.spec SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Data-Perl-0.002007-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Data::Perl is a collection of classes that wrap fundamental data types that exist in Perl. These classes and methods as they exist today are an attempt to mirror functionality provided by Moose's Native Traits. One important thing to note is all classes currently do no validation on constructor input. Fedora Account System Username: corsepiu
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1079613-perl-Data-Perl/licensecheck.txt All mentions of license or copyright are files with a copyright for Matthew Phillips and licensed as perl [-]: 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. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Data(perl-Data-OptList, perl-Data- ObjectDriver) NIGGLE: As stated in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Directory_Ownership Line 50 is ok %{perl_vendorlib}/* but you could change it to %{perl_vendorlib}/Data/* to avoid shared package ownerships [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. FIX: BR perl BR perl(constant) BR perl(Exporter) Requires perl(Exporter) TODO: BR perl(Pod::Coverage::TrustPod) BR perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) >= 1.08 BR perl(Test::Pod) > 1.41 BR perl(Role::Tiny::With) # is included in Role::Tiny strictures has never had a release below v1, therefore the missing version requirement is ok [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 30720 bytes in 3 files. [ ]: 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]: 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 uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. [x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Packager: Fedora Project See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [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). [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. [-]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
(In reply to David Dick from comment #1) > Line 50 is ok > > %{perl_vendorlib}/* > > but you could change it to > > %{perl_vendorlib}/Data/* > > to avoid shared package ownerships No. Perl-modules packages MUST share ownerships on everything they install below %{perl_vendorlib}. Using %{perl_vendorlib}/Data/* would be a mistake and be wrong. > FIX: > > BR perl Well, I guess your are aware, BR perl is controversial? a) Fedora packages are not required to BR: packages which are in mock defaults (perl is one of them). b) The package uses %{__perl} in %build => If at all, then BR: %{__perl} would make sense. > BR perl(constant) > BR perl(Exporter) > Requires perl(Exporter) Done. > TODO: > > BR perl(Pod::Coverage::TrustPod) > BR perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) >= 1.08 > BR perl(Test::Pod) > 1.41 This package's upstream treats Pod tests as optional. As they are not of much importance function-wise and because many perl-modules maintainers discourage packagers from running them, I have adopted the habit not to insist on excercising pod tests in perl packages, anymore. They are not worth the hassle they are causing.
Updated package: Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Data-Perl.spec SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Data-Perl-0.002007-2.fc20.src.rpm
Okay. APPROVED.
Thanks for the review, David. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Data-Perl Short Description: Base classes wrapping fundamental Perl data types Owners: corsepiu Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: perl-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
perl-Data-Perl-0.002007-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Data-Perl-0.002007-2.fc20
perl-Data-Perl-0.002007-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Data-Perl-0.002007-2.fc19
perl-Data-Perl-0.002007-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
perl-Data-Perl-0.002007-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.