SPEC URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/prename/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00591541-prename/prename.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/prename/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00591541-prename/prename-1.9-4.fc27.noarch.rpm Description: Prename renames the file names supplied according to the rule specified as the first argument. The argument is a Perl expression which is expected to modify the $_ string for at least some of the file names specified. FAS username: eclipseo Note: the LICENSE is fetched from GIT as it was just added by my request. The original name is rename, but in order not to conflict with GNU rename, I've elected to use a prefix, p for perl. A similar script exists in Arch under prename too.
Taken the review.
> SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/prename/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00591541-prename/prename-1.9-4.fc27.noarch.rpm Uh, this isn't actually the SRPM, this is the actual RPM. Since it's all pulled from copr, I assume https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/prename/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00591541-prename/prename-1.9-4.fc27.src.rpm is the corresponding SRPM?
My bad SPEC URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/prename/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00591541-prename/prename.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/prename/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00591541-prename/prename-1.9-4.fc27.src.rpm
So the package mostly looks good. I have one blocking comment and one observation: > BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) > BuildRequires: perl > Requires: perl(Getopt::Long) > Requires: perl Instead of doing this, you should BR: perl-generators and perl-interpreter as per the Perl packaging guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Build_Dependencies Then, your Requires shouldn't be needed at all. "/usr/bin/perl" will automatically get detected by RPM, since you're shipping a perl script, and perl-generators will cause Perl runtime dependencies to automatically be added to the package. > perl Makefile.PL PREFIX=/usr NO_PACKLIST=1 In case you're not aware, there is a macro for /usr: %{_prefix}. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros. While it's still strongly recommended, it's no longer actually a requirement to use it; see this section of the guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros. (I generally still use the macros out of habit, though). So this is just an observation, not something that's actually blocking.
Thank you, I fixed the things: SPEC URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/prename/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00593990-prename/prename.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/prename/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00593990-prename/prename-1.9-4.fc28.src.rpm
I'm afraid I missed one thing. rpmlint warns that: > prename.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv1+ > prename.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic The license should just be marked as "GPL+ or Artistic" as per the master list of license tags, not "GPLv1+ or Artistic": https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing. This is a minor issue though (and arguably an inconsistency with the license tags, since straight GPLv1 is marked as "GPLv1", not just "GPL"...) So package is APPROVED, but please fix this on import. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Artistic GPL (v1)". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1482997-prename/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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]: 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. [-]: %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: prename-1.9-4.fc28.noarch.rpm prename-1.9-4.fc28.src.rpm prename.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv1+ prename.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic prename.src: W: invalid-license GPLv1+ prename.src: W: invalid-license Artistic 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory prename.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv1+ prename.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- prename (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Glob) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(Text::Abbrev) perl(strict) Provides -------- prename: prename Source checksums ---------------- http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/P/PE/PEDERST/rename-1.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 17c5744f10d335a9d3674ed011ff26d3e840f25290c7f86c1d63d05771677ea0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 17c5744f10d335a9d3674ed011ff26d3e840f25290c7f86c1d63d05771677ea0 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pstray/rename/master/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cc8bfb42596fd7ee58232e30db92f80783235fb64023a68df15b8765e9614db4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cc8bfb42596fd7ee58232e30db92f80783235fb64023a68df15b8765e9614db4 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1482997 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/prename
prename-1.9-4.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-2017-1b44d15632
prename-1.9-4.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-2017-0671f3e812
prename-1.9-4.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-ceec7e33fd
prename-1.9-4.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
prename-1.9-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
prename-1.9-5.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-ef80a18735
prename-1.9-5.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-ef80a18735
prename-1.9-4.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
prename-1.9-5.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.