Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Chemistry-MacroMol/perl-Chemistry-MacroMol.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Chemistry-MacroMol/perl-Chemistry-MacroMol-0.06-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: For the purposes of this module, a macromolecule is just a molecule that consists of several "domains". For example, a protein consists of aminoacid residues, or a nucleic acid consists of bases. Therefore Chemistry::MacroMol is derived from Chemistry::Mol, with additional methods to handle the domains. The way things are currently structured, an atom in a macromolecule "belong" both to the MacroMol object and to a Domain object. This way you can get all the atoms in $protein via $protein->atoms, or to the atoms in residue 123 via $protein->domain(123)->atoms. Fedora Account System Username: rathann
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9857569 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2418386-perl-chemistry-macromol/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09857569-perl-Chemistry-MacroMol/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Dear Dominik, I reviewed the ticket. Two spelling errors found: "macromolecule" is a false positive and can be ignored (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macromolecule) "aminoacid" should be fixed ("amino acid"), I guess (although it's just copied from the original description). And as the final package requires perl(Scalar::Util) it should also be a BuildRequires in the "%if %{with check}" block. Otherwise the package looks fine. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "The Perl 5 License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/andreas/FedoraReview/2418386-perl-Chemistry- MacroMol/licensecheck.txt [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Chemistry(perl-Chemistry-Canonicalize, perl-Chemistry-Mol, perl-Chemistry-Pattern, perl-Chemistry-File-VRML, perl-Chemistry-Isotope, perl-Chemistry-Bond-Find) [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 1112 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: perl-Chemistry-MacroMol-0.06-1.fc45.noarch.rpm perl-Chemistry-MacroMol-0.06-1.fc45.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/tmp1uu0put3')] checks: 32, packages: 2 perl-Chemistry-MacroMol.noarch: E: spelling-error ('macromolecules', 'Summary(en_US) macromolecules -> macro molecules, macro-molecules, molecularity') perl-Chemistry-MacroMol.noarch: E: spelling-error ('macromolecule', '%description -l en_US macromolecule -> macro molecule, macro-molecule, molecular') perl-Chemistry-MacroMol.noarch: E: spelling-error ('aminoacid', '%description -l en_US aminoacid -> amino acid, amino-acid, nonacid') perl-Chemistry-MacroMol.src: E: spelling-error ('macromolecules', 'Summary(en_US) macromolecules -> macro molecules, macro-molecules, molecularity') perl-Chemistry-MacroMol.src: E: spelling-error ('macromolecule', '%description -l en_US macromolecule -> macro molecule, macro-molecule, molecular') perl-Chemistry-MacroMol.src: E: spelling-error ('aminoacid', '%description -l en_US aminoacid -> amino acid, amino-acid, nonacid') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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-Chemistry-MacroMol.noarch: E: spelling-error ('macromolecules', 'Summary(en_US) macromolecules -> macro molecules, macro-molecules, molecularity') perl-Chemistry-MacroMol.noarch: E: spelling-error ('macromolecule', '%description -l en_US macromolecule -> macro molecule, macro-molecule, molecular') perl-Chemistry-MacroMol.noarch: E: spelling-error ('aminoacid', '%description -l en_US aminoacid -> amino acid, amino-acid, nonacid') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://cpan.metacpan.org/authors/id/I/IT/ITUB/Chemistry-MacroMol-0.06.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 37c33b1a72a80905983ff1f9b373e40b7f1ea5441c2108e9f7d16d772f9e3079 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 37c33b1a72a80905983ff1f9b373e40b7f1ea5441c2108e9f7d16d772f9e3079 Requires -------- perl-Chemistry-MacroMol (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl(:VERSION) perl(Carp) perl(Chemistry::Mol) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(warnings) perl-libs Provides -------- perl-Chemistry-MacroMol: perl(Chemistry::Domain) perl(Chemistry::MacroMol) perl-Chemistry-MacroMol Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/andreas/FedoraReview/2418386-perl-Chemistry-MacroMol/srpm/perl-Chemistry-MacroMol.spec 2026-05-23 09:36:08.637181227 +0200 +++ /home/andreas/FedoraReview/2418386-perl-Chemistry-MacroMol/srpm-unpacked/perl-Chemistry-MacroMol.spec 2025-12-02 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %bcond check 1 @@ -59,3 +69,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Dec 02 2025 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 0.06-1 +- initial package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2418386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Perl, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, fonts, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Andreas Haupt from comment #2) > I reviewed the ticket. Two spelling errors found: > > "macromolecule" is a false positive and can be ignored (see: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macromolecule) Ack. > "aminoacid" should be fixed ("amino acid"), I guess (although it's just > copied from the original description). Fixed. > And as the final package requires perl(Scalar::Util) it should also be a > BuildRequires in the "%if %{with check}" block. It was in the unconditional BRs list, but anyway, I dropped the conditional around %check. > Otherwise the package looks fine. Thanks for the review!
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Chemistry-MacroMol/perl-Chemistry-MacroMol.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Chemistry-MacroMol/perl-Chemistry-MacroMol-0.06-2.fc45.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10583911 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2418386-perl-chemistry-macromol/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10583911-perl-Chemistry-MacroMol/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.
I see, you removed the %if %{with check} block in BuildRequires. As tests are usually run anyway, that's ok. But maybe you want to make clear which dependencies are really needed to build the package and which are needed to run the tests. Anyway, no show stopper. Package is approved.