Bug 766707 - Review Request: perl-Devel-Comments - Debug with executable smart comments to logs
Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-Comments - Debug with executable smart comments to...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Petr Šabata
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 766666
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-12-12 15:22 UTC by Petr Pisar
Modified: 2011-12-13 15:18 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: perl-Devel-Comments-1.1.4-1.fc17
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-12-13 15:11:47 UTC
Type: ---
psabata: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Petr Pisar 2011-12-12 15:22:17 UTC
Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Devel-Comments/perl-Devel-Comments.spec
SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Devel-Comments/perl-Devel-Comments-1.1.4-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description:
Devel::Comments is a source filter for your Perl code, intended to be used
only during development. Specially-formatted 'smart' comments are replaced by
executable code to dump variables to screen or to file, display loop progress
bars, or enforce conditions. These smart comments can all be disabled at once
by commenting out the "use Devel::Comments" line, whereupon they return to
being simple, dumb comments. Your debugging code can remain in place,
guaranteed harmless, ready for the next development cycle.

Comment 1 Petr Šabata 2011-12-13 12:26:07 UTC
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 architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: 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.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is 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 meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates 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.
[x]: 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/766707/Devel-Comments-v1.1.4.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : fd83e3fbad70bcd911acd4d0343da7e2
  MD5SUM upstream package : fd83e3fbad70bcd911acd4d0343da7e2

[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.
[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.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[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:
No issues.  A nice package, too :)

Generated by fedora-review 0.1.1
External plugins:

Comment 2 Petr Pisar 2011-12-13 12:43:07 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Devel-Comments 
Short Description: Debug with executable smart comments to logs
Owners: ppisar mmaslano psabata
Branches: 
InitialCC: perl-sig

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2011-12-13 13:26:20 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 4 Petr Pisar 2011-12-13 15:11:47 UTC
Thank you for the review and the repository.

Comment 5 Petr Šabata 2011-12-13 15:18:13 UTC
My pleasure.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.