Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 611372
Review Request: perl-Net-Twitter - Perl interface to Twitter
Last modified: 2014-03-25 07:57:13 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian/devel/fedora/perl-Net-Twitter.spec SRPM URL: http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian/devel/fedora/perl-Net-Twitter-3.13006-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: This is my first package so I'm seeking a sponsor for it. Net::Twitter is a Perl API to Twitter. In order to get this to build, I had to rebuild Net::OAuth (perl-Net-OAuth) for version 1.27. I've put the SPEC and SRPM for that here: http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian/devel/fedora/perl-Net-OAuth.spec http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian/devel/fedora/perl-Net-OAuth-0.27-3.fc13.src.rpm Not sure if I need to open a separate bugzilla issue for that.
(unofficial) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines rpmlint perl-Net-Twitter.spec perl-Net-Twitter.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Net/Net-Twitter-3.13006.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. error: Failed build dependencies: perl(Net::OAuth) >= 0.25 is needed by perl-Net-Twitter-3.13006-1.fc13.noarch dependencies need to be available from repo or possibly as a package being reviewed (I think). Maybe put in a bug report to have that package updated.
Fixed; I had a bad URL in the specfile. I also took the liberty of bumping to perl-Net-Twitter-3.13007. So, revised URLs: Spec: http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian/devel/fedora/perl-Net-Twitter.spec SRPM: http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian/devel/fedora/perl-Net-Twitter-3.13007-1.fc13.src.rpm I've also filed bug 619644 to get perl-Net-OAuth bumped to something usable.
www.aquezada.com does not respond for me; I cannot fetch the srpm to have a look at this package.
I don't see this problem; my webhost is up for me. The following URLs return data: SPEC: http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian/devel/fedora/perl-Net-Twitter.spec SRPM: http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian/devel/fedora/perl-Net-Twitter-3.14002-1.fc14.src.rpm Note that I've bumped this to version 3.14002 since it's been a while and a new version was released.
I'm able to fetch the spec and srpm, but I found some issues (bear with me, this is a prereview, to determine my level of cluelessness): download url is incorrect- although a converging-on-pi version was uploaded to cpan, it isn't in the by-name area in the repository. For the review, I set it to: Source0: http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/M/MM/MMIMS/Net-Twitter-%{version}.tar.gz The build then failed a few times for me using mock and fc-14 x86_64 as a target. * requested perl-Net-OAuth version doesn't exist yet (have 0.19, calls for 0.25) * build fails during test target over missing Test::Exception module * once that's added I got: Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/perl-Net-Twitter-3.14002-1.fc14.x86_64 error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /builddir/.cpan/build/Module-Build-0.3607-yl9YyP/t/install_test18260/foo/bar/Simple.pm /builddir/.cpan/build/Module-Build-0.3607-yl9YyP/t/install_test18260/foo/base/bin/script /builddir/.cpan/build/Module-Build-0.3607-yl9YyP/t/install_test18260/foo/base/html/lib/Simple.html /builddir/.cpan/build/Module-Build-0.3607-yl9YyP/t/install_test18260/foo/base/html/site/lib/Simple.html /builddir/.cpan/build/Module-Build-0.3607-yl9YyP/t/install_test18260/foo/base/lib/perl5/Simple.pm so it looks like Module::Build is another missing build dependency. There were also a bunch of other cpan-related things added, so it looks like cpan is auto adding some other stuff as well (perl-version is one)
I've been waiting for the maintainer of Net::OAuth to upgrade to a supported version - bug 619644 was marked as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE but I still don't see it in F14.
Is someone still working on this? I need the Net::Twitter::Lite module and there doesn't seem to be an RPM for it currently. Any chance we'll get one in the near future?
(In reply to comment #7) > Is someone still working on this? I need the Net::Twitter::Lite module and > there doesn't seem to be an RPM for it currently. Any chance we'll get one in > the near future? Hi Steven, I would love to, but I need the maintainer of Net::OAuth to push the upgraded version before I can work on this further. See bug 619644.
It's been a year since I last checked in on this. Are we any closer to getting the Net::Twitter module for Fedora?
Steven, et. al: I'm ready to give this another shot. Here are the new spec and SRPM files: http://assets.juliandunn.net/fedorapkg/perl-Net-Twitter.spec http://assets.juliandunn.net/fedorapkg/perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc16.src.rpm I've tested with mock, it seems okay now. Can someone review this and push it forward if it's good to go?
I'll do the review and possibly sponsor you once I'm happy with the package :)
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [-]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/contyk/src/review/611372/Net-Twitter-3.18001.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 88665d245f72b48ee87817edb5906d00 MD5SUM upstream package : 88665d245f72b48ee87817edb5906d00 [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: TODO: There are several missing build dependencies. Although they're somehow pulled in during the build now, it might not be the case in the future and they should be added. Namely: - perl(base), perl(lib), perl(Carp), perl(Encode), perl(HTTP::Response), perl(Net::Netrc), and perl(Time::HiRes) - perl(LWP::UserAgent) >= 5.819 (actually required in the code) TODO: BuildRoot tag and, buildroot removal in %install and the %clean section are all obsolete now and should be removed unless you plan to package this for EPEL. TODO: The same applies to %defattr in your $files section. TODO: rpmbuild tries to detect perl dependencies these days so you don't have to explicitly mention them in your Requires. Actually, having them there adds duplicates to the resulting RPM package dependencies. Please, remove those from your Requires: - perl(Data::Visitor::Callback), perl(Digest::SHA), perl(HTML::Entities), perl(HTTP::Request::Common), perl(JSON), perl(List::Util), perl(Moose::Exporter), perl(Moose::Role), perl(MooseX::Aliases), perl(MooseX::Role::Parameterized), perl(Scalar::Util), and perl(URI::Escape). - You also list dependencies only needed for build, those should be removed too: perl(Crypt::SSLeay) >= 0.5, perl(Digest::HMAC_SHA1), perl(File::Spec), perl(LWP::UserAgent) >= 2.032 - And finally, you should also remove underspecified autogenerated runtime dependencies from the resulting RPM package if you require specific versions in your package. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering for some info about this. You'll have to filter the following: perl(DateTime), perl(DateTime::Format::Strptime), perl(Devel::StackTrace), perl(Moose), perl(Net::OAuth), perl(Try::Tiny), and perl(URI) Those wouldn't normally block the review but since this is your first package, I'd like to see those fixed before getting further. Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git External plugins:
(In reply to comment #12) Hi Petr, I think I've fixed all these problems, and I have one question before asking for a re-review. To your last point about whether the package needs specific versions of runtime libraries: Is that something that I should infer from the software's Makefile.PL? The actual code doesn't "use" any particular versions of the libraries upon which it depends.
(In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > Hi Petr, > > I think I've fixed all these problems, and I have one question before asking > for a re-review. To your last point about whether the package needs specific > versions of runtime libraries: Is that something that I should infer from the > software's Makefile.PL? The actual code doesn't "use" any particular versions > of the libraries upon which it depends. Well, that depends. You should always inspect the code, the project Makefile.PL/Build.PL and META.* files before you decide. In this case, LWP::UserAgent 5.819 is used in tests so it should be buildrequired instead of 2.032 specified in Makefile.PL (and META.yml).
Ok. Thanks Petr. After reviewing the package I'm going to go with the assumption that I can use RPM's autorequires generator because I see nothing in the source code that insists on particular versions. Here's my updated spec and SRPM for a re-review: http://assets.juliandunn.net/fedorapkg/perl-Net-Twitter.spec http://assets.juliandunn.net/fedorapkg/perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-2.fc16.src.rpm
Looking at the changes... You've added the required build time dependencies, including the optional ones. OK. You've removed %defattr, the BuildRoot tag, buildroot removal in %install but you've kept the %clean section. You could just drop it entirely. Sort of OK. About the runtime dependencies -- sadly, rpmbuild doesn't detect everything. It usually fails with 'use's and 'require's in indented blocks, for example. I see you've just removed them all. I think you're missing some deps now but I'll have to check that again... I usually respect the versions in Makefile/META since those are the versions the original author developed and tested the module with. However, as I said before, it's up to you :)
So, after going through the deps again, I see only perl(Net::Netrc) doesn't get autodetected and you should require it explicitly.
(In reply to comment #17) > So, after going through the deps again, I see only perl(Net::Netrc) doesn't get > autodetected and you should require it explicitly. I left that out deliberately since the author says reading credentials from .netrc is an optional feature; the "require" is wrapped in an "if" statement in the code. Do you think it should be included as a dep unconditionally? I'm happy to include it as an extra Requires if you think it makes sense.
(In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #17) > > So, after going through the deps again, I see only perl(Net::Netrc) doesn't get > > autodetected and you should require it explicitly. > > I left that out deliberately since the author says reading credentials from > .netrc is an optional feature; Fair enough. > the "require" is wrapped in an "if" statement in > the code. Do you think it should be included as a dep unconditionally? I'm > happy to include it as an extra Requires if you think it makes sense. It's up to you. If you think most users would benefit from it, it might be a good idea. Approving. (You should now submit an SCM request.)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Net-Twitter Short Description: A Perl interface to the Twitter API Owners: jdunn Branches: f15 f16 f17 InitialCC: perl-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc17
perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc16
perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc15
perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-Net-Twitter New Branches: el6 Owners: jdunn To satisfy bz#10000038