Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 816869
Review Request: perl-VMware-API-LabManager - VMware LabManager API
Last modified: 2014-03-26 14:56:52 EDT
Spec URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-VMware-API-LabManager/perl-VMware-API-LabManager.spec SRPM URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-VMware-API-LabManager/perl-VMware-API-LabManager-2.01-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This module provides a Perl interface to VMware's Labmanager SOAP interface. It has a one-to-one mapping for most of the commands exposed in the external API as well as a many commands exposed in the internal API.
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [!]: 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. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint perl-VMware-API-LabManager-2.01-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint perl-VMware-API-LabManager-2.01-1.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint perl-VMware-API-LabManager-2.01-1.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/marca/Development/816869/VMware-API-LabManager-v2.01.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 8967e3a3eb6b029fc73132fa0d7bfa01 MD5SUM upstream package : 8967e3a3eb6b029fc73132fa0d7bfa01 [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. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 External plugins: The license is not usable for us. It is Perl Artistic. Could you ask upstream to change it for Artistic 2.0 or Perl license (GPL+ or Artistic)?
The CPAN module page says it's GPL+ or Artistic so I think this is just a wording issue. I've asked upstream for clarification.
Ping? :) License verified?
I haven't heard from upstream. I see a new version is out and it still mentions "Perl Artistic 2.0" but points to regular Artistic 2.0 which is also attached. This is really old. I suggest you package the new version and I'll review the package again.
I? You were the packager :) If you are not interested any more, just close the review.
Ah, right :) Well, I'm not, really.