Spec URL: http://fetter.org/rpm/perl-Business-CreditCard.spec SRPM URL: http://fetter.org/rpm/perl-Business-CreditCard-0.30-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: This package has methods which tell you whether a credit card number is self-consistent -- whether the last digit of the number is a valid checksum for the preceding digits.
This is my first package, and I need a sponsor :)
I will review this, but this bug should block FE-NEEDSPONSOR.
- MUST: OK, the package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: OK, the spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec - MUST: OK, license issue (see must fixes) - MUST: OK, tarball does not include license file. - MUST: OK, the spec file is written in American English. - MUST: OK, the spec file for the package is legible. - MUST: OK, source file matches the upstream source: 2d532583fbd58561f7f46f914cdf4510 Business-CreditCard-0.30.tar.gz - MUST: OK, package compiles successfully. - MUST: OK, there is no locale file in tarball - MUST: OK, no shared library and no ldconfig - MUST: OK, package is not relocatable. - MUST: OK, owns all directories. - MUST: OK, does not contain any duplicate files. - MUST: OK, permissions are correct. - MUST: OK, has %clean - MUST: OK, permissions are correct. - MUST: OK, no need for a seperate doc package. - MUST: OK, no need for -devel and -static packages. - MUST: OK, no .pc files. - MUST: OK, no libtool archives. - MUST: OK, not a gui app. - MUST: OK, package has rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install. - MUST: OK, filenames are valid UTF-8 - MUST: NOT CHECKED (Package must compile in mock) Should fixes: - SHOULD: Remove all whitespaces and use tabs (not necesarry, though. Must fixes: - MUST: FIX: rpmlint throws error about wrong license, you need to fix it. - MUST: FIX: You must define a macro for Business-CreditCard, and call that macro inside the package.
Release 2 passes rpmlint without warnings.
SPEC: http://fetter.org/rpm/perl-Business-CreditCard.spec SRPM: http://fetter.org/rpm/perl-Business-CreditCard-0.30-2.fc7.src.rpm
Must fixes that I wrote in comment #3 - MUST: OK: rpmlint throws error about wrong license, you need to fix it. - MUST: OK: You must define a macro for Business-CreditCard, and call that macro inside the package. Seems ok for me, another eye may want to look at this package.
Hmm, this package creates license files which are not in the original package. There's no reason to do this, and I've always been of the opinion that you generally shouldn't do this. Otherwise, this package is fine. Let's get this and perl-Config-Std done and then I'll sponsor you.
Hmm, no response in well over a month. Setting NEEDINFO; I'll close this ticket soon if there's no response.
Created attachment 188891 [details] cpanspec output without generated license code per request.
Drat, I thought I had CC'd myself on this ticket but somehow I hadn't and missed your response. Plus it's still in NEEDINFO; I'm not sure why it didn't get set back. Perhaps you didn't check the "I am providing the requested info..." checkbox, although I didn't think it was required. I'll go ahead and review this (although most folks would ask you to cut a new srpm). But we still need to work out perl-Config-Std before I'm going to sponsor you, and there's been no reply there in nearly two months.
When using cpanspec, you need to look over the generated specfile and specifically the License: tag and fill it in with the appropriate value based on what the license statements you find in the code and documentation. In this case, the documentation seems silent, but the code (CreditCard.pm, near the top) says: # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or # modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. So the License: tag should contain "GPL+ or Artistic". The license tag issue lears to the only rpmlint complaints: perl-Business-CreditCard.noarch: W: invalid-license CHECK perl-Business-CreditCard.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL perl-Business-CreditCard.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic That's the only issue I see, so just fix up the License: tag and I'll approve this package. * source files match upstream: 1a052afd178419057dff025b8ea3ad003ab110bce270359d3af70ad18664e055 Business-CreditCard-0.30.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field is not correct. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly X rpmlint has valid complaints * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Business::CreditCard) = 0.30 perl-Business-CreditCard = 0.30-3.fc8 = perl >= 1:5 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Exporter) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: ok 1 ok 2 * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
Created new .spec file with license fixed. rpmlint no longer complains. http://fetter.org/rpm/perl-Business-CreditCard.spec http://fetter.org/rpm/perl-Business-CreditCard-0.30-4.fc7.src.rpm
This one builds fine and rpmlint is clean. The issues I had are fixed. APPROVED Go ahead and apply for sponsorship and I'll take care of it.
I'm sponsoring you' there's no need for this ticket to block FE-NEEDSPONSOR.
I'm afraid that I haven't seen your sponsorship request come across, and a search didn't turn up a Fedora Account System ID that looks like it might be you, even though on IRC you said you already had one. Perhaps I just missed it; what's your FAS ID?
So, it's been about four months now. I'm going to go ahead and revoke sponsorship and close these tickets, but if you actually want to do something with these packages then please let me know.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 452601 ***