Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Test-Roo.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Test-Roo-1.004-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Composable, reusable tests with roles and Moo Fedora Account System Username: smani This is a dependency for licensecheck.
Just passing by, only two quick things :) - Please, point to CPAN, not MetaCPAN; CPAN is still the official site and data on MetaCPAN sometimes differ, if only slightly - You likely want to BuildRequire perl-generators (or list or the runtime dependencies manually)
Thanks! Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Test-Roo.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Test-Roo-1.004-2.fc25.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Jul 20 2016 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 1.004-2 - BR: perl-generators - Use CPAN URL
I will take this review. Are you willing to take bug 1352175 in exchange?
I'm not very familiar with perl packaging, so forgive me if this is a stupid question. According to META.yml, perl(bareword::filehandles), perl(indirect), and perl(multidimensional) are recommended. None of them appear in the automatically generated Requires. Should they be added manually as Recommends or Suggests? 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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/Test(perl-Test-Harness, perl-Perl-Tags, perl-Test-Simple) In this case, multiple ownership is correct. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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: 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 %license. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [x]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: perl-Test-Roo-1.004-2.fc25.noarch.rpm perl-Test-Roo-1.004-2.fc25.src.rpm perl-Test-Roo.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Composable -> Compo sable, Compo-sable, Compos able perl-Test-Roo.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Composable -> Compo sable, Compo-sable, Compos able 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl-Test-Roo.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Composable -> Compo sable, Compo-sable, Compos able 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- perl-Test-Roo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0) perl(:VERSION) perl(Moo) perl(MooX::Types::MooseLike::Base) perl(Sub::Install) perl(Test::More) perl(Test::Roo) perl(strictures) Provides -------- perl-Test-Roo: perl(Test::Roo) perl(Test::Roo::Class) perl(Test::Roo::Cookbook) perl(Test::Roo::Role) perl-Test-Roo Source checksums ---------------- http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/D/DA/DAGOLDEN/Test-Roo-1.004.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 21129a3cecb507b00948e16cf15fcde5dc4db235aba84afd7f47d22013a9ded6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 21129a3cecb507b00948e16cf15fcde5dc4db235aba84afd7f47d22013a9ded6 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1358328 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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
I don't see any blocking issues, so this package is APPROVED. I'll leave the addition of Recommends/Suggests or not to your discretion.
Mhh, looks like bogus metadata, none of the perl sources actually use any of those modules AFAICS. Thanks for the review!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Test-Roo