Spec URL: http://repo.lystor.org.ua/fedora/12/SPECS/perl-Number-Bytes-Human.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.lystor.org.ua/fedora/12/SRPMS/perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: This module provides a formatter which turns byte counts to usual readable format, like '2.0K', '3.1G', '100B'. It was inspired in the -h option of Unix utilities like du, df and ls for "human-readable" output. $ rpmlint {i386,x86_64,SRPMS}/perl-Number-Bytes-Human* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. This package builds successfully by mock on i686/x86_64 architectures. This is one from my first packages and I'm looking for a sponsor.
Builds successfully in mock on Fedora 11 with i386/x86_64 architectures.
Builds successfully in mock on Fedora 13 with i386/x86_64 architectures.
Steve, please note that this review must be done by a sponsor.
Yes as Jason Mentions I can't review this to completion. But looking at the package it all looks to fine from a packaging point of view.
Steve, please feel free to review this if you want as now I am sponsoring Nikolay.
Review: perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-1 Date: March 7th 2010 Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2036564 * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint perl-Number-Bytes-Human.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-1.fc14.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-1.fc14.noarch.rpm perl-Number-Bytes-Human.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter perl-Number-Bytes-Human.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US du -> dew, doe, Du perl-Number-Bytes-Human.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df -> sf, ff, dd perl-Number-Bytes-Human.src: W: non-coherent-filename perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-1.fc14.src.rpm perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-1.fc14.noarch.rpm perl-Number-Bytes-Human.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter perl-Number-Bytes-Human.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US du -> dew, doe, Du perl-Number-Bytes-Human.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df -> sf, ff, dd 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. MAYBE: I'm a bit confused by the non-coherent-filename error? You could try and remove the word "formatter" as it does not exist. * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. MAYBE: I've been advised before by people more in the know before to change PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot} to INSTALLDIR=%{buildroot} * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. YES. * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. YES. * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . YES. GPL+ or Artistic * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. YES. Declares itself to be "perl" * 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. YES. No file is included. * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. NO. rpmlint error on 'filterer'. * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. YES. * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. YES. 8e5d230709bfc5e919f5f47ed3cb5bdb Number-Bytes-Human-0.07.tar.gz 8e5d230709bfc5e919f5f47ed3cb5bdb ../SOURCES/Number-Bytes-Human-0.07.tar.gz * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. YES. See koji builds * 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. YES: It compiles anyway. * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. YES. They seem sane * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. YES: no Locales. * MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. YES: no libs. * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. YES: No system libs. * MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. YES: Not relocatable. * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. YES: * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. YES: * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. YES: * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). YES: * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. YES: * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. YES: * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). YES: * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. YES: * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. YES: * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. YES: * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). YES: * 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. YES: * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} YES: * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[21] YES: * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. YES: * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. YES: * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). YES: * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. YES: * 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. YES: A license file should be added but it I notice there is a comment allready in the README file so upstream plans to do it. * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. YES: None available. * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. YES: see koji. * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. YES: * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Not tested. * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. YES: no srcipts. * SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. YES: no devel. * 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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. YES: no pkgconfig file. * 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. YES: * SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. So in summary, just the INSTALLDIR comment and the use of the word "formatter" which is not a word. Also the "non-coherent-filename" just confuses me, it looks to be an rpmlint bug but I'll check some more. Steve
About "non-coherent-filename": If you are using "rawhide" (i.e. fc14) rpmlint: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=160474 * Sat Mar 06 2010 Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta> - 0.95-2 - Patch to fix non-coherent-filename regression for source packages.
> So in summary, just the INSTALLDIR comment and the use of the word "formatter" which is not a word. Fixed > Also the "non-coherent-filename" just confuses me I can't reproduce the error with rpmlint-0.94-1.fc12.noarch Spec diff: @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ Name: perl-Number-Bytes-Human Version: 0.07 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} Summary: Convert byte count to human readable format Group: Development/Libraries @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ %description -This module provides a formatter which turns byte counts to usual readable +This module is designed to format byte counts to usual readable format, like '2.0K', '3.1G', '100B'. It was inspired in the -h option of Unix utilities like du, df and ls for "human-readable" output. @@ -29,19 +29,20 @@ # Fix file end-of-line encoding for f in Changes README; do - %{__sed} -i 's/\r//' $f + %{__sed} 's/\r//' $f > $f.new + touch -r $f $f.new + %{__mv} -f $f.new $f done %build %{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor -make %{?_smp_mflags} +%{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} %install %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} - -make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot} +%{__make} pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot} find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \; find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null \; @@ -65,5 +66,9 @@ %changelog +* Sat Feb 13 2010 Nikolay Ulyanitsky <lystor AT lystor.org.ua> - 0.07-2 +- Fixed the description +- Preserve timestamps on documentation files $ rpmlint perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-2.fc12.src.rpm perl-Number-Bytes-Human.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US du -> dew, doe, Du perl-Number-Bytes-Human.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df -> sf, ff, dd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-2.fc12.noarch.rpm perl-Number-Bytes-Human.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US du -> dew, doe, Du perl-Number-Bytes-Human.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df -> sf, ff, dd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Spec URL: http://repo.lystor.org.ua/fedora/12/SPECS/perl-Number-Bytes-Human.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.lystor.org.ua/fedora/12/SRPMS/perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-2.fc12.src.rpm
Hi, Sorry I confused myself with my PERL_INSTALL_ROOT comment, what I meant but did not write it down was. %install %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} %{__make} pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot} should become %install %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} %{__make} pure_install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} change that and I'll approve. Steve.
Hi > change that and I'll approve. Done Spec diff: @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ Name: perl-Number-Bytes-Human Version: 0.07 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: Convert byte count to human readable format Group: Development/Libraries @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ %install %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} -%{__make} pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot} +%{__make} pure_install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \; find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null \; @@ -66,6 +66,9 @@ %changelog +* Sun Mar 07 2010 Nikolay Ulyanitsky <lystor AT lystor.org.ua> - 0.07-3 +- Using DESTDIR instead of PERL_INSTALL_ROOT $ rpmlint perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc12.src.rpm perl-Number-Bytes-Human.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US du -> dew, doe, Du perl-Number-Bytes-Human.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df -> sf, ff, dd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc12.noarch.rpm perl-Number-Bytes-Human.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US du -> dew, doe, Du perl-Number-Bytes-Human.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df -> sf, ff, dd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Spec URL: http://repo.lystor.org.ua/fedora/12/SPECS/perl-Number-Bytes-Human.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.lystor.org.ua/fedora/12/SRPMS/perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc12.src.rpm
APPROVED. Steve p.s I've a perl module that needs reviewing if you have the time. bug #569893
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Number-Bytes-Human Short Description: Convert byte count to human readable format Owners: lystor Branches: F-11 F-12 F-13 InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc13
perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc12
perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc11
perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update perl-Number-Bytes-Human'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc12
perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update perl-Number-Bytes-Human'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc11
perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update perl-Number-Bytes-Human'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc13
perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-Number-Bytes-Human New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: lystor rebus Dear SCM team, please can you add branches for EPEL for the package perl-Number-Bytes-Human ? We have agreed with lystor that I (rebus) will co-maintain the packages for the EPEL as I have got another package (snmpcheck) which depends on the availability of perl-Number-Bytes-Human in EPEL. Thank you Michal Ambroz
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-Number-Bytes-Human New Branches: epel7 Owners: rebus lystor Hello SCM team, plase can you add epel7 branch for the perl-Number-Bytes-Human package? Thank you Michal Ambroz
Sorry, again. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-Number-Bytes-Human New Branches: epel7 Owners: rebus lystor fab