Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-NNTPClient/perl-NNTPClient.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-NNTPClient/perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: This module implements a client interface to NNTP, enabling a Perl 5 application to talk to NNTP servers. It uses the Object Oriented Programming interface. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar
fedora-review complains about BuildRequires make and findutils, since those are already included in the current minimum build environment. 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 the packager. Package name: Is there a reason for this package not being named perl-News-NNTPClient? License: There is no license text other than a note in the README file and in the module itself, saying it can be redistributed or modified under the same terms of Perl itself. It would be nice to ask upstream to distribute a LICENSE file as well (not a blocker). Tests: Some tests on %check are failing, apparently, they rely on a running news server. Would you work on it, so it doesn't run these tests?
(In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #1) > Package name: Is there a reason for this package not being named > perl-News-NNTPClient? > The reason is the upstream is called "NNTPClient" <http://search.cpan.org/dist/NNTPClient/>. The guidelines say we should prefer an upstream name. > License: There is no license text other than a note in the README file and > in the module itself, saying it can be redistributed or modified under the > same terms of Perl itself. It would be nice to ask upstream to distribute a > LICENSE file as well (not a blocker). > Reported as <https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=118792>. > Tests: Some tests on %check are failing, apparently, they rely on a running > news server. Would you work on it, so it doesn't run these tests? Yes. I patched them. First I tried to run them against Fedora's inn server, but there is a bug in the inn daemon preventing from it. Updated package is available on the same URL.
BuildRequires ok binary Requires ok binary Provides ok 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. [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. [x]: 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 20480 bytes in 3 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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: [x]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.fc26.noarch.rpm perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.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-NNTPClient (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0) perl(:VERSION) perl(Carp) perl(Socket) perl(strict) perl(vars) Provides -------- perl-NNTPClient: perl(News::NNTPClient) perl-NNTPClient Source checksums ---------------- http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/R/RV/RVA/NNTPClient-0.37.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5c51a634ffccca95eb2d95855bcc937b057f9a14bd79ee4db6e65583bd576da3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5c51a634ffccca95eb2d95855bcc937b057f9a14bd79ee4db6e65583bd576da3
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-NNTPClient
Thank you for the review and the repository.
perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4f6c0fa947
perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-eac4ab186a
perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.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-2016-4f6c0fa947
perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.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-eac4ab186a
perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.