Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ngompa/obs-fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00759333-perl-Diff-LibXDiff/perl-Diff-LibXDiff.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ngompa/obs-fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00759333-perl-Diff-LibXDiff/perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Diff::LibXDiff is a binding of LibXDiff to Perl via XS. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
- URL: search.cpan.org is disappearing soon. Why don't we go ahead and update it? http://search.cpan.org/dist/Diff-LibXDiff/ - License. I'm confused, but this is my first perl package to review. The source code is declaring LGPLv2+, but the CPAN page and your spec show GPL+ or Artistic. Which is correct?
URL and Source addresses are Ok. Source archive (SHA-256: 12605c10fc4649a5b9e2bcda6960ec39e498ea25e060db4362c926de4594e590) is original. Ok. Summary verified from lib/Diff/LibXDiff.pm. Ok. Description verified from lib/Diff/LibXDiff.pm. Ok. License verified from lib/Diff/LibXDiff.pm and README. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-Diff-LibXDiff.spec review-perl-Diff-LibXDiff/results/perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-1.fc29.src.rpm review-perl-Diff-LibXDiff/results/perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm perl-Diff-LibXDiff.spec:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(libxdiff) perl-Diff-LibXDiff.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(libxdiff) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Please specify the version of the bundled libxdiff (0.23). Please use DESTDIR instead of PERL_INSTALL_ROOT. $ rpm -q -lv -p perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 mai 29 19:36 /usr/lib/.build-id drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 mai 29 19:36 /usr/lib/.build-id/d8 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 70 mai 29 19:36 /usr/lib/.build-id/d8/221f1486f1e9bde59cbf9c62a648ab841699a6 -> ../../../../usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Diff/LibXDiff/LibXDiff.so drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 mai 29 19:36 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Diff -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5215 avril 21 2010 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Diff/LibXDiff.pm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 mai 29 19:36 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Diff drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 mai 29 19:36 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Diff/LibXDiff -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 57904 mai 29 19:36 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Diff/LibXDiff/LibXDiff.so drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 mai 29 19:36 /usr/share/doc/perl-Diff-LibXDiff -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 avril 21 2010 /usr/share/doc/perl-Diff-LibXDiff/Changes -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2675 avril 21 2010 /usr/share/doc/perl-Diff-LibXDiff/README -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2320 mai 29 19:36 /usr/share/man/man3/Diff::LibXDiff.3pm.gz File permissions and layout are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 19:43:01 1 libc.so.6()(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) 1 libperl.so.5.26()(64bit) 1 libpthread.so.0()(64bit) 1 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.2) 2 perl(Carp::Clan) 1 perl(DynaLoader) 1 perl(Exporter) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(Test::More) >= 0.42 1 perl(Test::Most) 1 perl(warnings) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) Please explain why you've added: Requires: perl(Test::More) >= 0.42 Requires: perl(Test::Most) They don't seem necessary for the package to work, they're only used for the tests. Also you need to add gcc as a BR since it will be removed from the buildroot. $ rpm -q --provides -p perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm bundled(libxdiff) perl(Diff::LibXDiff) = 0.05 perl-Diff-LibXDiff = 0.05-1.fc29 perl-Diff-LibXDiff(x86-64) = 0.05-1.fc29 Binary provides are Ok. Package builds in F28 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27284941) Ok Please address all the points mentioned above.
Addressed in the following new iteration: Spec URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/perl-Diff-LibXDiff.spec SRPM URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-0.fc28.3.src.rpm Note that the Release is below 1. That will change when I upload after completed review.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3) > Note that the Release is below 1. That will change when I upload after > completed review. No problem at all. I usually ammend the changelog at the end of a review. Note that "Release: 0%{?dist}.3" will not work if you were to use this on a real package. You will want to have the dist tag at the end. "Release: 0.3%{?dist}" would work. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - "make %{?_smp_mflags}" is used. Please consider "%make_build" - No license file for bundled library. Even though it is not explicitly required in the guidelines I would think we need a copy of it to be provided since we are shipping the library. Upstream may be dead so an external copy of the file may be required. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. [!]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michael/Projects/fedora/provenpackager/1582876-perl-Diff- LibXDiff/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 2 files. [!]: 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 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 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: perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-0.fc29.3.x86_64.rpm perl-Diff-LibXDiff-debuginfo-0.05-0.fc29.3.x86_64.rpm perl-Diff-LibXDiff-debugsource-0.05-0.fc29.3.x86_64.rpm perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-0.fc29.3.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: perl-Diff-LibXDiff-debuginfo-0.05-0.fc29.3.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 perl-Diff-LibXDiff.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://metacpan.org/release/Diff-LibXDiff <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> perl-Diff-LibXDiff-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://metacpan.org/release/Diff-LibXDiff <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> perl-Diff-LibXDiff-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://metacpan.org/release/Diff-LibXDiff <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- perl-Diff-LibXDiff (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libperl.so.5.26()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.2) perl(Carp::Clan) perl(DynaLoader) perl(Exporter) perl(strict) perl(warnings) rtld(GNU_HASH) perl-Diff-LibXDiff-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl-Diff-LibXDiff-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- perl-Diff-LibXDiff: bundled(libxdiff) perl(Diff::LibXDiff) perl-Diff-LibXDiff perl-Diff-LibXDiff(x86-64) perl-Diff-LibXDiff-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) perl-Diff-LibXDiff-debuginfo perl-Diff-LibXDiff-debuginfo(x86-64) perl-Diff-LibXDiff-debugsource: perl-Diff-LibXDiff-debugsource perl-Diff-LibXDiff-debugsource(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- perl-Diff-LibXDiff: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Diff/LibXDiff/LibXDiff.so Source checksums ---------------- http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/R/RK/RKRIMEN/Diff-LibXDiff-0.05.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 12605c10fc4649a5b9e2bcda6960ec39e498ea25e060db4362c926de4594e590 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 12605c10fc4649a5b9e2bcda6960ec39e498ea25e060db4362c926de4594e590 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1582876 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
> - "make %{?_smp_mflags}" is used. Please consider "%make_build" I'm mainly using "make %{?_smp_mflags}" for symmetry with the custom install command, but I can change it if desired. > - No license file for bundled library. Even though it is not explicitly required in the guidelines I would think we need a copy of it to be provided since we are shipping the library. Upstream may be dead so an external copy of the file may be required. We're explicitly not supposed to do that: > 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.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5) > I'm mainly using "make %{?_smp_mflags}" for symmetry with the custom install > command, but I can change it if desired. You felt, strangely, compelled to point it out in my review. I honestly don't care. > We're explicitly not supposed to do that: > > > 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. That is a review checklist item and not the packaging guideline for licensing. The Packaging Guidelines for Licensing are clear you must include a copy of the full license text. There are instructions on when upstream does not provide a copy. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text You are providing no license text for either the perl module or the bundled library. Obviously because upstream does not provide a file for either, but it must be provided.
Addressed in the following new iteration: Spec URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/perl-Diff-LibXDiff.spec SRPM URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-0.fc28.4.src.rpm
Looks great. Approved.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Diff-LibXDiff
perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-08b8258bee
perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-fb5a3157f7
perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-1.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-2018-08b8258bee
perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-fb5a3157f7
perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-Diff-LibXDiff-0.05-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.