Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Number-Range.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Number-Range-0.12-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Extension to work with ranges of numbers Fedora Account System Username: smani Scrach build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15554681
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 [!]: 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_Clarification NON blocking issues: ==================== perl-Number-Range.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/perl-Number-Range/README ===== 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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1374642-perl-Number- Range/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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/Number(perl-Number-Misc, perl-Number- Fraction, perl-Number-WithError, perl-Number-Tolerant, perl-Number- Compare, perl-Number-Format, perl-Number-Bytes-Human) [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 [-]: 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 1 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]: 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. [c]: 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. [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-Number-Range-0.12-1.fc26.noarch.rpm perl-Number-Range-0.12-1.fc26.src.rpm perl-Number-Range.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/perl-Number-Range/README 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl-Number-Range.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/perl-Number-Range/README 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- perl-Number-Range (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(POSIX) perl(strict) perl(warnings) perl(warnings::register) Provides -------- perl-Number-Range: perl(Number::Range) perl-Number-Range Source checksums ---------------- http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/L/LA/LARRYSH/Number-Range-0.12.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 433e821ac44ab6164c7e92b60ff7afa60a279bc550134c82ceb70b3ef4ee2925 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 433e821ac44ab6164c7e92b60ff7afa60a279bc550134c82ceb70b3ef4ee2925 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1374642 --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: As I understand one should now explicitly list all BuildRequires, including make and gcc, etc (and I've been instructed to do so in other reviews). License: I don't think there is any more I can do about this at the moment: # "This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself." # Query about separate license file: https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=117694 License: GPL+ or Artistic
Please, fix this hint before import perl-Number-Range.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/perl-Number-Range/README
Thanks for the quick review, feel free to ping me if you need a review in exchange sometime.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Number-Range
perl-Number-Range-0.12-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d294d28454
perl-Number-Range-0.12-1.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-d294d28454
perl-Number-Range-0.12-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.