Spec URL: https://skim.cz/tmp/perl-Dispatch-Class/perl-Dispatch-Class.spec SRPM URL: https://skim.cz/tmp/perl-Dispatch-Class/perl-Dispatch-Class-0.02-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: This module offers a (mostly) simple way to check the class of an object and handle specific cases specially. Fedora Account System Username: mspacek
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8584177 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2342791-perl-dispatch-class/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08584177-perl-Dispatch-Class/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
This is dependency for Catmandu framework.
- Add BR: coreutils for the fixperms macro. - Make the wildcards in %files more targeted: %{perl_vendorlib}/Dispatch/ %{_mandir}/man3/Dispatch::Class.3pm* Otherwise, LGTM
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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2342791-perl-Dispatch-Class/licensecheck.txt [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1196 bytes in 2 files. [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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: perl-Dispatch-Class-0.02-1.fc43.noarch.rpm perl-Dispatch-Class-0.02-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpuf8syzy4')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Dispatch/Dispatch-Class-0.02.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d74db43b1af9e8bd46ffc15bfe4df1e5d810c42ce8582e937510dc2a2ca16582 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d74db43b1af9e8bd46ffc15bfe4df1e5d810c42ce8582e937510dc2a2ca16582 Requires -------- perl-Dispatch-Class (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl(Exporter::Tiny) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(parent) perl(strict) perl(warnings) perl-libs Provides -------- perl-Dispatch-Class: perl(Dispatch::Class) perl-Dispatch-Class Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2342791 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Perl, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Beside the 2 nitpicks above, there's a 3rd one : [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Anyway, no need to block on any of them. The package is APPROVED.
I created PR for LICENSE file (https://github.com/mauke/Dispatch-Class/pull/2)
@xavier Thank you for the review.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Dispatch-Class