Bug 1352666 - Review Request: perl-Pod-Constants - Include constants from POD
Summary: Review Request: perl-Pod-Constants - Include constants from POD
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: gil cattaneo
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1352667
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-07-04 15:53 UTC by Sandro Mani
Modified: 2016-07-18 20:54 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-07-18 18:27:53 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
puntogil: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Sandro Mani 2016-07-04 15:53:56 UTC
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Pod-Constants.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Pod-Constants-0.18-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: Include constants from POD
Fedora Account System Username: smani

Comment 1 gil cattaneo 2016-07-04 16:39:56 UTC
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.
[!]: 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 %license.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1352666-perl-Pod-
     Constants/licensecheck.txt
    README file report "Perl Artistic License, version 2 or later,
           OR the terms of the GNU General Public License, v3 or later."
    this should not be interpreted as:  GPLv3+ or Artistic 2.0
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#License_tag
    All source files are without license headers. Please, ask to upstream to confirm the
    licensing of code and/or content/s, and ask to add license headers
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification
[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Pod(perl-Pod-Checker, perl-Pod-LaTeX,
     perl-podlators, perl-Pod-Usage, perl-Pod-Escapes, perl-Pod-Simple,
     perl-Pod-Parser, perl-Pod-Perldoc)
[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.
[x]: 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 10240 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 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[!]: 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.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[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-Pod-Constants-0.18-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          perl-Pod-Constants-0.18-1.fc25.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
perl-Pod-Constants (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0)
    perl(:VERSION)
    perl(Carp)
    perl(Exporter)
    perl(Pod::Parser)
    perl(base)
    perl(strict)
    perl(warnings)



Provides
--------
perl-Pod-Constants:
    perl(Pod::Constants)
    perl-Pod-Constants



Source checksums
----------------
https://cpan.metacpan.org/authors/id/M/MG/MGV/Pod-Constants-0.18.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ae04b3e35b26fa344d96884a7a7fabf0a3061eae9157cfbb6bc5b88dcc79026b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ae04b3e35b26fa344d96884a7a7fabf0a3061eae9157cfbb6bc5b88dcc79026b


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1352666 --plugins Perl -m fedora-rawhide-i386
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 2 gil cattaneo 2016-07-04 16:42:34 UTC
Issues (non blocking):

[!]: 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 %license.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1352666-perl-Pod-
     Constants/licensecheck.txt
    README file report "Perl Artistic License, version 2 or later,
           OR the terms of the GNU General Public License, v3 or later."
    this should not be interpreted as:  GPLv3+ or Artistic 2.0
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#License_tag
    All source files are without license headers. Please, ask to upstream to
    confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, and ask to add license headers

    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification


[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.

[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

Comment 3 Sandro Mani 2016-07-04 16:47:08 UTC
Hmm, the homepage claims that version 0.18
"Relicense from Artistic-2+ OR GPL-3+ to plain Artistic-2"

Sent following mail to bug-Pod-Constants.org:

During review for the Fedora packages, licensing issues were raised:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352666#c2

From the homepage, I read for version 0.18 "Relicense from Artistic-2+ OR GPL-3+ to plain Artistic-2". But the README file still states 

"It may be used, redistributed and/or
modified under the terms of the Perl Artistic License, version 2 or
later, OR the terms of the GNU General Public License, v3 or later."

Could the license be clarified, and ideally a LICENSE file be added to the source tarball?

Thanks.

Comment 4 gil cattaneo 2016-07-04 16:50:23 UTC
Thanks, approved

Comment 5 Sandro Mani 2016-07-04 16:54:41 UTC
Upstream is quick :)

"License is Artistic version 2, I forgot to update the README when I made
the previous release.

I will make a new release tomorrow which fixes the README and adds a
LICENSE file.

Thanks for the report"


Thanks for the review!

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-07-05 16:19:25 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Pod-Constants

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2016-07-06 07:16:17 UTC
perl-Pod-Constants-0.19-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a729c1a1c4

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2016-07-06 07:16:24 UTC
perl-Pod-Constants-0.19-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-38370e4e95

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2016-07-10 03:55:00 UTC
perl-Pod-Constants-0.19-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a729c1a1c4

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2016-07-10 16:01:16 UTC
perl-Pod-Constants-0.19-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-38370e4e95

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2016-07-18 18:27:51 UTC
perl-Pod-Constants-0.19-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2016-07-18 20:54:11 UTC
perl-Pod-Constants-0.19-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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