Spec URL: http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Sys-Virt-TCK/perl-Sys-Virt-TCK.spec SRPM URL: http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Sys-Virt-TCK/perl-Sys-Virt-TCK-0.1.0-1.src.rpm Description: Sys::Virt::TCK provides an integration test suite for validating correct operation of libvirt drivers with underlying virtualization technology. This package is to satisfy this feature https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/VirtTCK
Only a couple minor issues: changelog and license in the spec -- see below MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. $ rpmlint perl-Sys-Virt-TCK-0.1.0-1.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint perl-Sys-Virt-TCK.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint perl-Sys-Virt-TCK-0.1.0-1.noarch.rpm perl-Sys-Virt-TCK.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.1-1 ['0.1.0-1', '0.1.0-1'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Looks like either the changelog entry is a typo (0.0.1 vs 0.1.0) or the 0.1.0 entry is missing. FAIL Fix the version number in the changelog entry or add a new one. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. PASS MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} PASS MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. PASS MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. PASS MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. FAIL. This package is dual-licened GPLv2 and artistic license, so the spec should show both. MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. PASS MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. PASS MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. PASS MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source PASS MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. PASS on x86_64 f12 rawhide MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. PASS, noarch so can build anywhere MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires PASS MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly N/A MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. PASS MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. PASS MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. PASS MUST: Each package must have a %clean section PASS MUST: Each package must consistently use macros PASS MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content PASS MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage N/A MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application PASS MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency N/A MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives N/A MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file N/A MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages PASS MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} PASS MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. PASS SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. PASS SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. N/A SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. PASS SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. NOT checked SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. NOT checked SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. PASS SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. PASS SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. N/A SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. N/A
New src.rpm uploaded with fixed License & changelog fields http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Sys-Virt-TCK/perl-Sys-Virt-TCK-0.1.0-2.src.rpm SPEC is at the same location as before.
Suggest adding %{?dist} From bug #199688 I see %{extra_release} is for autobuilder - worth a comment, it's not obvious %{perlvendorarch} is unused Any particular reason for the %{perlversion} requirement? Doesn't seem normal for perl packaging, is it? What perl version is actually required? Do you need this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Versioned_MODULE_COMPAT__Requires Just tried to build, used yum-builddep to install the build deps and got: Checking prerequisites... - ERROR: Test::Pod::Coverage is not installed - ERROR: Test::Pod is not installed - ERROR: XML::XPath is not installed although it built okay, anything to worry about? Apart from that looks good to me: $ rpmlint perl-Sys-Virt-TCK-0.1.0-2.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint perl-Sys-Virt-TCK.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. and scott's FAIL items are sorted
New src.rpm uploaded with fixed BRs, disttag/extrarelease, etc http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Sys-Virt-TCK/perl-Sys-Virt-TCK-0.1.0-3.src.rpm SPEC is at the same location as before.
Thanks, looks good to me
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Sys-Virt-TCK Short Description: libvirt Technology Compatability Kit Owners: berrange Branches: F-11 InitialCC: fedora-virt-maint
Unfortunately there is no fedora account named "fedora-virt-maint", so I cannot add them to the initialCC field. Otherwise, CVS done.
Built into rawhide. Will fix the CC in pkgdb later.
The account is virtmaint - we'd add it ourselves in pkgdb, but because it's a system account, we can't Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-Sys-Virt-TCK InitialCC: virtmaint
No problem. CVS done.