Bug 463763 - Package review: perl-Module-Inspector
Package review: perl-Module-Inspector
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Matěj Cepl
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 463761 463762 463764 463770
Blocks: 457517
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-09-24 12:03 EDT by Marcela Mašláňová
Modified: 2008-09-29 06:09 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-09-29 06:09:28 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
mcepl: fedora‑review+
kevin: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)
patch fixing spec file (348 bytes, patch)
2008-09-25 09:55 EDT, Matěj Cepl
no flags Details | Diff

  None (edit)
Description Marcela Mašláňová 2008-09-24 12:03:40 EDT
An entire ecosystem of CPAN modules exist around the files and formats
relating to the CPAN itself. Parsers and object models for various
different types of files have been created over the years by various people
for various projects.
Comment 1 Matěj Cepl 2008-09-25 09:52:39 EDT
+ GOOD: rpmlint is silent on both source and binary package.
+ GOOD: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
- BAD: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines .
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
  there is no email address in %changelog -- all required formats of the
  changelog record include email address
+ GOOD: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
+ GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ GOOD: LICENSE file is in %doc.
+ GOOD: The spec file is written in American English.
+ GOOD: The spec file for the package is legible.
+ GOOD: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
+ GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
  Given the number of dependencies I have built it only locally on x86_64
+ GOOD: noarch, so it compiles everywhere.
+ GOOD: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
  No locale support.
+ GOOD: no libraries
+ GOOD: not relocatable
+ GOOD: A package owns all directories that it creates.
  Follows perl guidelines.
+ GOOD: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ GOOD: Permissions on files must be set properly.
+ GOOD: Each package have a %clean section.
+ GOOD: Each package consistently use macros.
+ GOOD: The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ GOOD: No large documentation files, so no a -doc subpackage.
+ GOOD: Files registered in %doc does not affect the runtime of the
+ GOOD: No header files.
+ GOOD: No static libraries.
+ GOOD: No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ GOOD: The package does not contain library files with a suffix.
+ GOOD: No devel packages.
+ GOOD: No .la libtool archives.
+ GOOD: Packages does not contain GUI applications.
+ GOOD: Packages does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
+ GOOD: Runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
+ GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
+ SHOULD: Includes license text.

Attaching patch for the SPEC file -- when this is applied, APPROVED.
Comment 2 Matěj Cepl 2008-09-25 09:55:01 EDT
Created attachment 317689 [details]
patch fixing spec file
Comment 4 Marcela Mašláňová 2008-09-25 10:01:30 EDT
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: perl-Module-Inspector
Short Description: parsers and object models for various files
Owners: mmaslano@redhat.com
Branches: rawhide
InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
Comment 5 Kevin Fenzi 2008-09-28 15:14:42 EDT
cvs done.

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