SRPM URL: 
ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/rakudo-Readline/srpm/rakudo-Readline-0.20170918git.a9f6dc4-1.fc26.src.rpm

Hello,

 - I've got an rpmlint error:

rakudo-Readline.x86_64: E: devel-dependency readline-devel

   It seems dubious to include a devel dependency as a Require, on the Github page, they mention readline being a dependency, not readline-devel. libreadline.so.5 is provided by compat-readline5.

 - The versionning seems wrong. It should be something like this for a development snapshot:

Version:	0
Release:	0.1.20170918gita9f6dc4%{?dist}

 - rakudo-Readline.x86_64: E: no-binary

The package doesn't provide any binary, thus shouldn't the package be noarch?


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: "Artistic (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Artistic (v2.0)", "Unknown
     or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rakudo-Readline/review-
     rakudo-Readline/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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: rakudo-Readline-0.20170918git.a9f6dc4-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          rakudo-Readline-0.20170918git.a9f6dc4-1.fc28.src.rpm
rakudo-Readline.x86_64: E: devel-dependency readline-devel
rakudo-Readline.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libreadline -> breadline, headliner, deadline
rakudo-Readline.x86_64: E: no-binary
rakudo-Readline.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
rakudo-Readline.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libreadline -> breadline, headliner, deadline
rakudo-Readline.src: W: no-%build-section
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.

Thank you for taking the review!


--About to require readline-devel --

I get no rpmlint error when checking the spec file

$ grep devel rakudo-Readline.spec 
Requires:	readline-devel
$ rpmlint rakudo-Readline.spec
rakudo-Readline.spec: W: no-%build-section
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


If I erase the readline-devel package and install compat-readline5 or compat-readline6 I get the following error:

$ perl6
I ran into a problem while trying to set up Readline: Could not instantiate role 'ReadlineBehavior':
Cannot locate native library 'libreadline.so': libreadline.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Falling back to Linenoise (if present)
You may want to `zef install Readline` or `zef install Linenoise` or use rlwrap for a line editor
 
To exit type 'exit' or '^D'
>

The package 'readline-devel' is needed to provide /usr/lib64/libreadline.so.


-- Making the package noarch --

The package provides MoarVM-Bytecode that differs a little bit at different architectures (x86_64 and i686). So that installs to ${_libdir} in place of %{_datadir}. But I you want I will make the package 'noarch'.


-- Version --
I will start to change the version to:

Version:	0
Release:	0.1.20170918gita9f6dc4%{?dist}

that means the version should be 0?

In the META file the version is 0.0.2. I would like to take this as version number and not the long string. Please let me know what you would prefer.

> The package 'readline-devel' is needed to provide /usr/lib64/libreadline.so.

Ok, I think this is a bug from upstream but we can't do anything about it.

> The package provides MoarVM-Bytecode that differs a little bit at different architectures (x86_64 and i686). So that installs to ${_libdir} in place of %{_datadir}.

Okay, as long as there is a justification for it, it is fine as is for me.

>In the META file the version is 0.0.2

I think you should use 0.0.2 as the version, I've checked upstream git log, and there's no significant change after this version was tagged.

Trivial change, and the other point are resoled, so the package is accepted.

Thank you very much for the review!!

I will change the version and release tags to:

Version:	0.0.2
Release:	0.1.20170918gita9f6dc4%{?dist}

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rakudo-Readline

rakudo-Readline-0.0.2-0.1.20170918gita9f6dc4.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5c40a17f72

rakudo-Readline-0.0.2-0.1.20170918gita9f6dc4.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-2017-5c40a17f72

rakudo-Readline-0.0.2-0.1.20170918gita9f6dc4.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.