SRPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/perltidy/20090616/2.fc12/src/perltidy-20090616-2.fc12.src.rpm Spec: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/fileinfo?rpmID=1458511&filename=perltidy.spec Description: Perltidy is a Perl script which indents and reformats Perl scripts to make them easier to read. If you write Perl scripts, or spend much time reading them, you will probably find it useful. The formatting can be controlled with command line parameters. The default parameter settings approximately follow the suggestions in the Perl Style Guide. Perltidy can also output html of both pod and source code. Besides reformatting scripts, Perltidy can be a great help in tracking down errors with missing or extra braces, parentheses, and square brackets because it is very good at localizing errors.
Hm, what's this about, a merge review with what? We do have perltidy in Fedora and have had it for a long time, I maintain it, and the SRPM and spec links in the initial comment point to the 2nd latest Fedora perltidy build.
Sadly for import to next RHEL, we need formal review ticket for every package. I didn't find any for this, because it was done probably long time ago without ticket.
+ GOOD: rpmlint is bradford:rpmbuild$ rpmlint -i bradford:devel$ rpmlint -i perltidy-20090616-3.fc13.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. bradford:devel$ rpmlint -i noarch/perltidy-20090616-3.fc13.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. bradford:devel$ + GOOD: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Package is long time in the practice so renaming doesn't make much sense (and the name makes sense). + GOOD: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. - BAD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Actually it should be GPLv2 only (not GPLv2+ ... cannot find anywhere "or later"). + GOOD: COPYING 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. MD5: 63baa94a96fc5c272e06e72e589e7673 + GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. yes, builds on x86_64/F12 + GOOD: it's noarch so no issues with other architectures. + GOOD: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. (builds in koji) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=121809 + GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. No locale support. + GOOD: %post and %postun scripts OK no scripts + GOOD: not relocatable - UNSURE: A package owns all directories that it creates. I don't like this in %files: %{perl_vendorlib}/Perl/ Is this correct? Why not just %{perl_vendorlib}/Perl/Tidy.pm + GOOD: A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + GOOD: Permissions on files are set automatically. + 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 application. + GOOD: No header files. + GOOD: No static libraries. + GOOD: No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + GOOD: .so file is provided in -devel package. no .so file + GOOD: Correct Requires in -devel subpackage. no -devel package + 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. + GOOD: Includes license text. Please correct the indicated issues.
License: http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/SHANCOCK/Perl-Tidy-20090616/lib/Perl/Tidy.pm GPLv2+ is valid %{perl_vendorlib}/Perl/ I suppose someone has to own this directory. That's the perl way.
(In reply to comment #4) > %{perl_vendorlib}/Perl/ > I suppose someone has to own this directory. That's the perl way. That's actually the general packaging guidelines way, the dir would be unowned otherwise. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
OK, I feel persuaded. APPROVED.