Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mavit/perl-Mail-Audit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08914798-perl-Mail-Audit/perl-Mail-Audit.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mavit/perl-Mail-Audit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08914798-perl-Mail-Audit/perl-Mail-Audit-2.228-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Library for creating easy mail filters Fedora Account System Username: mavit
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8914873 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2360686-perl-mail-audit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08914873-perl-Mail-Audit/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.
Taking review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Audit/Util [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Audit/Util [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Tests seem to pass, but the following can be seen in the test suite output. ... Cannot locate '/usr/lib/sendmail;/usr/sbin/sendmail;/usr/ucblib/sendmail' at /builddir/build/BUILD/perl-Mail-Audit-2.228-build/Mail-Audit-2.228/blib/lib/Mail/Audit/Vacation.pm line 40. ... # Test::Pod => module not found. (want 1.41) ... ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "GNU General Public License, Version 1 and/or The Perl 5 License". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/perl-Mail- Audit/licensecheck.txt [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Audit/Util [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Audit/Util [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 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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 9146 bytes in 3 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: perl-Mail-Audit-2.228-1.fc43.noarch.rpm perl-Mail-Audit-2.228-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpb52xukbl')] checks: 32, packages: 2 perl-Mail-Audit.noarch: E: spelling-error ('deliverlib', '%description -l en_US deliverlib -> deliver lib, deliver-lib, deliverable') perl-Mail-Audit.src: E: spelling-error ('deliverlib', '%description -l en_US deliverlib -> deliver lib, deliver-lib, deliverable') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "perl-Mail-Audit". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://cpan.metacpan.org/authors/id/R/RJ/RJBS/Mail-Audit-2.228.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 41a42dc3fbead585c732de5e35b46c3d3511358458bc31520abac1946c99d2e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 41a42dc3fbead585c732de5e35b46c3d3511358458bc31520abac1946c99d2e4 Requires -------- perl-Mail-Audit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(:VERSION) perl(Carp) perl(Fcntl) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::HomeDir) perl(File::Path) perl(File::Spec) perl(File::Tempdir) perl(MIME::Entity) perl(MIME::Parser) perl(Mail::Audit) perl(Mail::Audit::MailInternet) perl(Mail::Audit::Util::Tempdir) perl(Mail::Internet) perl(Mail::Mailer) perl(Mail::POP3Client) perl(Mail::Send) perl(Net::SMTP) perl(Parse::RecDescent) perl(Symbol) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(constant) perl(parent) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) perl-libs Provides -------- perl-Mail-Audit: perl(Mail::Audit) perl(Mail::Audit::KillDups) perl(Mail::Audit::MAPS) perl(Mail::Audit::MailInternet) perl(Mail::Audit::MimeEntity) perl(Mail::Audit::Util::Tempdir) perl(Mail::Audit::Vacation) perl-Mail-Audit Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name perl-Mail-Audit --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Perl, Generic Disabled plugins: R, PHP, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
One more nitpick: BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec) is listed twice.
Thanks for taking this review. (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #3) > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Audit/Util > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Audit/Util Fixed. > Tests seem to pass, but the following can be seen in the test suite output. > ... > Cannot locate '/usr/lib/sendmail;/usr/sbin/sendmail;/usr/ucblib/sendmail' at > /builddir/build/BUILD/perl-Mail-Audit-2.228-build/Mail-Audit-2.228/blib/lib/ > Mail/Audit/Vacation.pm line 40. This is only a warning, so I think we should ignore it. We could install sendmail to make it go away, but there doesn't seem to be any point, since the tests pass anyway. > ... > # Test::Pod => module not found. (want 1.41) This relates to developer tests, which we don't run. > BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec) > > is listed twice. Fixed. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mavit/perl-Mail-Audit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09127239-perl-Mail-Audit/perl-Mail-Audit.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mavit/perl-Mail-Audit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09127239-perl-Mail-Audit/perl-Mail-Audit-2.228-3.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2092845 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8914873 to 9127512
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9127512 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2360686-perl-mail-audit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09127512-perl-Mail-Audit/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.
All issues fixed, APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Mail-Audit