Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/perl-MIME-Base32/perl-MIME-Base32.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.openswan.org/perl-MIME-Base32/perl-MIME-Base32-1.01-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Encode data similar way like MIME::Base64 does. This package is a requirement for perl-Net-DNS-SEC version 0.15 Based on cpanspec rpmlint output: rpmlint SRPMS/perl-MIME-Base32-1.01-1.fc12.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/perl-MIME-Base32-1.01-1.fc12.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Built the src-rpm on an f13 box and installed without issues.
I'd suggest a better description that doesn't require you to read the other package description. And includes both encoding and decoding.
I (and cpanspec) just took everything verbatim from the cpan text.
Ok, but there is another problem now: + [ ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. + FAIL: no license is in any of the source files
(it's possible to get a statement from the author specifying the license is as expected for perl, but it'd be better to get them to push a new release through pause with a fix)
The complete review. The only show stopper I see is the licensing issue. * Review of -1 *** MUSTs + [X] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. + [X] MUST: The package must be named according to the [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines][Package Naming Guidelines]]. + [X] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. + [X] MUST: The package must meet the [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines][Packaging Guidelines]] . + [X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines][Licensing Guidelines]] . + [ ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. + FAIL: no license is in any of the source files + [ ] 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. + [X] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. + [X] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. + [X] 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 [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL][Source URL Guidelines]] for how to deal with this. + [X] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + built and installed locally (and used in production) on f13 + [X] 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. + [X] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2][exceptions section]] of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. + [X] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. + [X] 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. + [X] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + [X] 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. + [X] 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. + [X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) + [X] 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. + [X] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. + [X] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. + [X] 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). + [X] 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. + [X] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. + [X] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. + [ ] 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. + [X] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + [X] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. + [X] 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. + [X] 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. + [X] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. *** SHOULDs + [ ] 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: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. + [ ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. + didn't do so, but I'm positive it'll be fine. -- WH + [X] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. + tested minimal set + [X] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. + [X] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. + [X] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. + [X] 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. + [X] 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. + [X] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. *** Comments + I'd suggest a better description that doesn't require you to read the other package description. And includes both encoding and decoding. + (but the text came from the source package, and is thus fine)
Author contacted....awaiting reply
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:12:05 +0200 From: Daniel Péder - www.infoset.cz <Daniel.Peder> Cc: Daniel.Peder, Wes Hardaker <wes> To: Paul Wouters <paul> Subject: Re: MIME-Base32 license? yes, I confirm that
That's good with me (and thinks for CC'ing me on the request to the author so I could verify the response).
Daniel released 1.02a that includes the license. Updates spec and srpm: Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/perl-MIME-Base32/perl-MIME-Base32.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.openswan.org/perl-MIME-Base32/perl-MIME-Base32-1.01-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Encode and decode data in a similar way like MIME::Base64 does.
ftp://ftp.openswan.org/perl-MIME-Base32/perl-MIME-Base32-1.02a-1.fc12.src.rpm
The review I approved was for the previous version and it's already marked as + so I don't think I need to review it again since you can consider it simply an upgrade from the initial approved copy.
@ Paul: Ping, perl-Net-DNS-SEC has turned up as a missing dep in a pushed package in EPEL is there a reason you've not asked for the repo?
Mark: no - I've asked for a branch. But it would also this package for the latest version... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=237338
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-MIME-Base32 New Branches: f14 f13 f12 el5 el6 Owners: pwouters
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-MIME-Base32 Short Description: Base32 encoder / decoder Owners: pwouters Branches: f14 f13 f12 el5 el6 InitialCC: pwouters
Git done (by process-git-requests).
perl-MIME-Base32-1.02a-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-MIME-Base32-1.02a-1.el5
perl-MIME-Base32-1.02a-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-MIME-Base32-1.02a-1.fc12
perl-MIME-Base32-1.02a-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-MIME-Base32-1.02a-1.fc13
perl-MIME-Base32-1.02a-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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-MIME-Base32'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-MIME-Base32-1.02a-1.el5
perl-MIME-Base32-1.02a-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-MIME-Base32-1.02a-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-MIME-Base32-1.02a-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-MIME-Base32 New Branches: epel7 Owners: pwouters