Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone/perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone/perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone-1.23-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Data::ICal::TimeZone provides a mechanism for adding the Olson standard time zones to your iCalendar documents, plus a copy of the Olson time zone database. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar
License: The only place that refers to a license is in the TimeZone.pm file, saying that the module is licensed under the same terms as Perl. Could this be interpreted as "this refers only to this file and not to its submodules" instead of "this refers to this cpan module, thus, submodules included"? Any thoughts here? It would be nice to ask the author to include the license in the META.yml file so it is described in CPAN (and maybe a LICENSE file?). BuildRequires are ok. binary Requires are ok. The package has embedded time zones data, but spec follows https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries, provides bundled(tzdata) and packager opened a bug on it @ https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=118709 suggesting that upstream should not use those embedded information and provides a solution. binary Provides are ok. fedora-review complains about BuildRequires make and findutils, since those are already included in the current minimum build environment. I had a discussion on #fedora-devel on those: guidelines are vague on those since "RPM deps may change" and the definition of "basic shell scripts" is not clear. So I believe those are up to packager and reviewer to discuss. Maybe fedora-review should be updated (?) Package looks good to me. Approved 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note - discussed during review. [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 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. [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. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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-Data-ICal-TimeZone-1.23-1.fc26.noarch.rpm perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone-1.23-1.fc26.src.rpm perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iCalendar -> i Calendar, calendar, legendarily perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iCalendar -> i Calendar, calendar, legendarily 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iCalendar -> i Calendar, calendar, legendarily 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/R/RC/RCLAMP/Data-ICal-TimeZone-1.23.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3c422bb69dff33ae884c746e6015ed2da19deb2804b59c4c7978428c49def1bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3c422bb69dff33ae884c746e6015ed2da19deb2804b59c4c7978428c49def1bf
Thanks. I file a bug report regarding the license <https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=118756>.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone
Thank you for the review and the repository.
perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone-1.23-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d9ac25fe7a
perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone-1.23-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9d8306c742
perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone-1.23-1.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-d9ac25fe7a
perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone-1.23-1.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-2016-9d8306c742
perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone-1.23-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-Data-ICal-TimeZone-1.23-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
*** Bug 1646032 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***