Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Path-Iterator-Rule.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Path-Iterator-Rule-1.012-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Iterative, recursive file finder Fedora Account System Username: smani
I would like to take this review. for now I have nothing to be reviewed urgently if there is someone who needs it i leave this
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: make See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Please, remove [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1373244-perl-Path-Iterator- Rule/licensecheck.txt All source files are without license header. Please. report the problem to upstream https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1373244-perl-Path-Iterator- Rule/licensecheck.txt [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/Path(perl-Path-IsDev, perl-Path-Class, perl-Path-Tiny, perl-Path-FindDev, perl-Path-ScanINC) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: 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 40960 bytes in 2 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: perl-Path-Iterator-Rule-1.012-1.fc26.noarch.rpm perl-Path-Iterator-Rule-1.012-1.fc26.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-Path-Iterator-Rule (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0) perl(:VERSION) perl(Carp) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Spec) perl(List::Util) perl(Number::Compare) perl(Path::Iterator::Rule) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(Text::Glob) perl(Try::Tiny) perl(if) perl(strict) perl(warnings) perl(warnings::register) Provides -------- perl-Path-Iterator-Rule: perl(PIR) perl(Path::Iterator::Rule) perl-Path-Iterator-Rule Source checksums ---------------- http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/D/DA/DAGOLDEN/Path-Iterator-Rule-1.012.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a1bd883971ab0d2c290756173268d18910b26a4da7ff89045f643fbef956e6fc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a1bd883971ab0d2c290756173268d18910b26a4da7ff89045f643fbef956e6fc Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1373244 --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, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
make: same remark as in #1374642 license: The license information of the source files is placed in the pod metadata at the bottom of the files, i.e. =head1 COPYRIGHT AND LICENSE This software is Copyright (c) 2013 by David Golden. This is free software, licensed under: The Apache License, Version 2.0, January 2004
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #3) > make: same remark as in #1374642 Sure, thanks > license: The license information of the source files is placed in the pod > metadata at the bottom of the files, i.e. > > =head1 COPYRIGHT AND LICENSE > > This software is Copyright (c) 2013 by David Golden. > > This is free software, licensed under: > > The Apache License, Version 2.0, January 2004 are now two weeks that i have a blocked package for this problem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369224 (... creates problems, which are not few) Please, ask to upstream to add license headers where are missing
I already tried once, he refused: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=829667
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4) > (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #3) > > make: same remark as in #1374642 > Sure, thanks > > license: The license information of the source files is placed in the pod > > metadata at the bottom of the files, i.e. > > > > =head1 COPYRIGHT AND LICENSE > > > > This software is Copyright (c) 2013 by David Golden. > > > > This is free software, licensed under: > > > > The Apache License, Version 2.0, January 2004 > ah ok, sorry, i lost to read something ... Approved
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #5) > I already tried once, he refused: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=829667 yes i know also for rhbz#1369224 ... the main developer is a bit ... angry ... :)
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Path-Iterator-Rule
perl-Path-Iterator-Rule-1.012-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-fdec559075
perl-Path-Iterator-Rule-1.012-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-fdec559075
perl-Path-Iterator-Rule-1.012-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.