Bug 2413753 - Review Request: perl-Parse-LocalDistribution - Parses local .pm files as PAUSE does
Summary: Review Request: perl-Parse-LocalDistribution - Parses local .pm files as PAUS...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Terje Rosten
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://metacpan.org/dist/Parse-Local...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 2413485
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-11-10 11:43 UTC by Jitka Plesnikova
Modified: 2026-04-06 09:21 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-04-06 09:21:29 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
terjeros: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jitka Plesnikova 2025-11-10 11:43:41 UTC
Spec URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Parse-LocalDistribution/perl-Parse-LocalDistribution.spec
SRPM URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Parse-LocalDistribution/perl-Parse-LocalDistribution-0.20-1.fc44.src.rpm

Description:
This is a sister module of Parse::PMFile. This module parses local .pm
files (and a META file if any) in a specific (current if not specified)
directory, and returns a hash reference that represents "provides"
information (with some extra meta data). This is almost the same as
Module::Metadata does (which has been in Perl core since Perl 5.13.9). The
main difference is the most of the code of this module is directly taken
from the PAUSE code as of June 2013. If you need better compatibility to
PAUSE, try this. If you need better performance, safety, or portability in
general, Module::Metadata may be a better and handier option (Parse::PMFile
(and thus Parse::LocalDistribution) actually evaluates code in the $VERSION
line (in a Safe compartment), which may be problematic in some cases).

Fedora Account System Username: jplesnik

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-11-10 11:48:12 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9783651
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2413753-perl-parse-localdistribution/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09783651-perl-Parse-LocalDistribution/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.

Comment 2 Terje Rosten 2025-11-12 10:13:26 UTC
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.
[-]: 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.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 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 2237 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: perl-Parse-LocalDistribution-0.20-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          perl-Parse-LocalDistribution-0.20-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpxiybr5z2')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

perl-Parse-LocalDistribution.noarch: E: spelling-error ('PMFile', '%description -l en_US PMFile -> PM File, PM-File, Profile')
perl-Parse-LocalDistribution.src: E: spelling-error ('PMFile', '%description -l en_US PMFile -> PM File, PM-File, Profile')
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s 

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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

perl-Parse-LocalDistribution.noarch: E: spelling-error ('PMFile', '%description -l en_US PMFile -> Pm File, Pm-file, Misfile')
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s 

Source checksums
----------------
https://cpan.metacpan.org/authors/id/I/IS/ISHIGAKI/Parse-LocalDistribution-0.20.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 664f4351e55ee9473c9b012af87d2832f652979cb89ade7954e6f38cd126a859
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 664f4351e55ee9473c9b012af87d2832f652979cb89ade7954e6f38cd126a859

Requires
--------
perl-Parse-LocalDistribution (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    perl(Cwd)
    perl(File::Find)
    perl(File::Spec)
    perl(List::Util)
    perl(Parse::CPAN::Meta)
    perl(Parse::PMFile)
    perl(strict)
    perl(warnings)
    perl-libs

Provides
--------
perl-Parse-LocalDistribution:
    perl(Parse::LocalDistribution)
    perl-Parse-LocalDistribution

 Summary:
 --------

 - would be good to ask upstream to add license file to distribution,
   the rest is fine,

  package is APPROVED.

Comment 3 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2025-11-25 09:18:39 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Parse-LocalDistribution

Comment 4 Terje Rosten 2026-04-06 09:21:29 UTC
Package imported, closing


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.