Spec URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//BackupPC-XS.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//BackupPC-XS-0.52-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: .
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18380284
Thanks again for taking time to do this. The main problem is the lack of %description. The rest seems fine: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (not in ld path). [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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 (latest) [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. PLEASE FILL %description. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need (not needed here) [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 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]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in BackupPC-XS-debuginfo [!]: Package functions as described. NO DESCRIPTION. [x]: Latest version is packaged (0.52) [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: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18380284 buildArch (BackupPC-XS-0.52-1.fc25.src.rpm, x86_64) buildArch (BackupPC-XS-0.52-1.fc25.src.rpm, ppc64le) buildArch (BackupPC-XS-0.52-1.fc25.src.rpm, aarch64) buildArch (BackupPC-XS-0.52-1.fc25.src.rpm, ppc64) buildArch (BackupPC-XS-0.52-1.fc25.src.rpm, i686) buildArch (BackupPC-XS-0.52-1.fc25.src.rpm, armv7hl) [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: BackupPC-XS-0.52-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm BackupPC-XS-debuginfo-0.52-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm BackupPC-XS-0.52-1.fc24.src.rpm BackupPC-XS.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) perl -> Perl, peel, perk BackupPC-XS.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C BackupPC::XS implements various BackupPC functions in a perl-callable module. BackupPC-XS.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/BackupPC/XS/.packlist BackupPC-XS.x86_64: W: perl-temp-file /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/BackupPC/XS/.packlist BackupPC-XS.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/BackupPC/XS/XS.so 555 BackupPC-XS.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C BackupPC::XS implements various BackupPC functions in a perl-callable module. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: BackupPC-XS-debuginfo-0.52-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory BackupPC-XS.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) perl -> Perl, peel, perk BackupPC-XS.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C BackupPC::XS implements various BackupPC functions in a perl-callable module. BackupPC-XS.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/BackupPC/XS/XS.so 555 BackupPC-XS.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/BackupPC/XS/.packlist BackupPC-XS.x86_64: W: perl-temp-file /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/BackupPC/XS/.packlist 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- BackupPC-XS-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): BackupPC-XS (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libperl.so.5.22()(64bit) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.3) perl(:VERSION) perl(Exporter) perl(XSLoader) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- BackupPC-XS-debuginfo: BackupPC-XS-debuginfo BackupPC-XS-debuginfo(x86-64) BackupPC-XS: BackupPC-XS BackupPC-XS(x86-64) perl(BackupPC::XS) Unversioned so-files -------------------- BackupPC-XS: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/BackupPC/XS/XS.so
Ok, I meant to go back and fill the description but forgot. Fixed. Not worried about parallel make for such a small package, and it looks like the makefile is not designed to support it as the builds fail when used. Since the changes were editorial I re-uploaded the spec and SRPM so the links are still good.
Issues fixed or clarified. This is approved. lef
Thanks for the quick review!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/BackupPC-XS
This package has many issues: It bundles zlib. Link it to system zlib instead. Or declare `Provides: bundled(zlib)'. It's missing these build-requries: bash (configure.sh:1) gcc (builds C code, this must be explicitly build-required per C packaging guidelines) make (BackupPC-XS.spec:31) perl(constant) (lib/BackupPC/XS.pm:16) perl(Exporter) (lib/BackupPC/XS.pm:7) perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) (Makefile.PL:2) perl(strict) (lib/BackupPC/XS.pm:4) perl(warnings) (lib/BackupPC/XS.pm:5) perl(XSLoader) (lib/BackupPC/XS.pm:60) It packages /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/BackupPC/XS/.packlist file. It should not be packaged. You can solve it by adding NO_PACKACKLIST=1 argument to "perl Makefile.PL" call in the spec file. The /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/BackupPC/XS/XS.so has wrong permissions (0555). Fix it by executing "%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}" in the %install section. It's missing these licenses: The ppport.h file compiled into executable is licensed as (GPL+ or Artistic). The bundked zlib is licensed as (zlib). None of them are mentioned in the License tag.
Also, I do believe the package should be called "perl-BackupPC-XS" since it provides nothing but Perl bindings only. README is not a pure license file, ca be considered as %doc. As for BR list, please follow one style, and don't mix multiple BRs in one line.
(In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #8) > Also, I do believe the package should be called "perl-BackupPC-XS" since it > provides nothing but Perl bindings only. In hindsight it would probably be a good idea but not worth a package rename. The guidelines only reference naming of CPAN modules[1] so they could be more clear. > README is not a pure license file, ca be considered as %doc. Fixed. > As for BR list, please follow one style, and don't mix multiple BRs in one > line. I typically do one per line but like to group ones that are tightly linked together, in this case perl and perl-devel. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines#perl_modules
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #9) > (In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #8) > > Also, I do believe the package should be called "perl-BackupPC-XS" since it > > provides nothing but Perl bindings only. > > In hindsight it would probably be a good idea but not worth a package > rename. The guidelines only reference naming of CPAN modules[1] so they > could be more clear. BTW, it's provided on CPAN: https://metacpan.org/pod/BackupPC::XS I always considered it a CPAN module. So naming it with "perl" prefix definitely would be more clear.
(In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #10) > (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #9) > > (In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #8) > > > Also, I do believe the package should be called "perl-BackupPC-XS" since it > > > provides nothing but Perl bindings only. > > > > In hindsight it would probably be a good idea but not worth a package > > rename. The guidelines only reference naming of CPAN modules[1] so they > > could be more clear. > > BTW, it's provided on CPAN: https://metacpan.org/pod/BackupPC::XS > I always considered it a CPAN module. So naming it with "perl" prefix > definitely would be more clear. Well, google failed me then. In either case, since it's only used with BackupPC and not intended to be used by anyone else I don't think it's worth changing at this point.
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.fc26 rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3f27cfadc0
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.fc25 rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2d89031806
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.el7 rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-7cdafde337
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.fc26, rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-3f27cfadc0
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.fc25, rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.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-2017-2d89031806
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.el7, rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2017-7cdafde337
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.fc26, rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.fc25, rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.el7, rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.