Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-Date-Range/branches/fedora/perl-Date-Range.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Date-Range/perl-Date-Range-1.41-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Quite often, when dealing with dates, we don't just want to know information about one particular date, but about a range of dates. For example, we may wish to know whether a given date is in a particular range, or what the overlap is between one range and another. This module lets you ask such questions. Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc This package is needed for upgrade of perl-Finance-Quote to version 1.50 (#1976544)
This is a successful koji build. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73060256
Hello Paul, I think this package is mostly ok, but one issue for me exists. Please check my review. Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi Issues ====== I think this package requires perl(Date::Simple) Because Date::Range->new uses Date::Simple instances by default. If correct, > "BuildRequires: perl(Date::Simple) >= 0.03" should be: > "Requires: perl(Date::Simple) >= 0.03" Here is the result of fedora-review. 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. [-]: 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. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Date(perl-TimeDate, perl-Date-Calc, perl- Date-ICal, perl-Date-ISO8601, perl-Date-Leapyear, perl-Date- HolidayParser, perl-Date-Extract, perl-Date-Manip, perl-Date-Handler, perl-Date-Tiny, perl-Date-JD) [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. [-]: 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. [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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [?]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: perl-Date-Range-1.41-1.fc35.noarch.rpm perl-Date-Range-1.41-1.fc35.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://cpan.metacpan.org/modules/by-module/Date/Date-Range-1.41.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bf9897492b101c0503879d14a7e7ebe902544383601ae7c69a95de75cbd948b9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bf9897492b101c0503879d14a7e7ebe902544383601ae7c69a95de75cbd948b9 Requires -------- perl-Date-Range (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.34.0) perl(Carp) perl(strict) Provides -------- perl-Date-Range: perl(Date::Range) perl-Date-Range Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1977229 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Perl, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, fonts, PHP, Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Hello Hirotaka, you are right, Date::Simple needs to be a run-time dependency, not just a test dependency. I have updated the spec accordingly. New SRPM: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Date-Range/perl-Date-Range-1.41-1.fc35.src.rpm
(In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #3) > New SRPM: > http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Date-Range/perl-Date-Range-1.41-1.fc35.src.rpm Whoops, that should have been: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Date-Range/perl-Date-Range-1.41-2.fc35.src.rpm
Hi Paul, Thanks for your quick reply! Package approved. Best Regards, Hirotaka Koji scratch build(Success): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73391490 fedora-review(No problem): 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. [-]: 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. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Date(perl-Date-Manip, perl-Date-ICal, perl-Date-Tiny, perl-Date-Leapyear, perl-Date-Handler, perl-Date- Extract, perl-Date-ISO8601, perl-Date-Calc, perl-Date-HolidayParser, perl-TimeDate, perl-Date-JD) [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. [-]: 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. [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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [-]: 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. [!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: perl-Date-Range-1.41-2.fc35.noarch.rpm perl-Date-Range-1.41-2.fc35.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- $ rpmlint perl-Date-Range-1.41-2.fc35.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint perl-Date-Range-1.41-2.fc35.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://cpan.metacpan.org/modules/by-module/Date/Date-Range-1.41.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bf9897492b101c0503879d14a7e7ebe902544383601ae7c69a95de75cbd948b9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bf9897492b101c0503879d14a7e7ebe902544383601ae7c69a95de75cbd948b9 Requires -------- perl-Date-Range (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.34.0) perl(Carp) perl(Date::Simple) perl(strict) Provides -------- perl-Date-Range: perl(Date::Range) perl-Date-Range Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1977229 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Perl, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Python, Java, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review. Repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36125
Trying again with proper assignee: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36128
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Date-Range
Build done for Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73444308
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-589df368c0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-589df368c0
FEDORA-2021-e3a72947fc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e3a72947fc
FEDORA-2021-7cebef36b5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7cebef36b5
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-589df368c0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-589df368c0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-09198bbd59 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-09198bbd59 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-7cebef36b5 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-7cebef36b5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7cebef36b5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-e3a72947fc has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-e3a72947fc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e3a72947fc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-e3a72947fc has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-7cebef36b5 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-589df368c0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-09198bbd59 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.