Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-SQL-ReservedWords.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Rose::Object is a generic object base class. It provides very little functionality, but a healthy dose of convention. Fedora Account System Username: wfp
Oops, cut and pasted URLs from another request, here are the correct ones. Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-3.fc17.src.rpm
Updated: Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-4.fc17.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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. [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. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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 macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [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 Package is not relocatable. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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 systemd file(s) if in need. [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. [!]: 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 / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [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. [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. TODO: * Add BuildRequires perl(B) -- lib/Rose/Object/MakeMethods.pm:187 perl(Carp) perl(Class::XSAccessor) -- lib/Rose/Object/MakeMethods/Generic.pm:20 perl(lib) -- t/redefine.t:8 perl(Test::Pod) >= 1.00 -- t/pod.t:7 * Add Requires perl(B) perl(Class::XSAccessor) I have one question. Why you filter Rose::Class::MakeMethods from Requires? %filter_from_requires /perl(Rose::Object::MakeMethods)/d I think it is not needed. The rest of spec file is ok.
Rose::Object::MakeMethods was originally filtered from requires because it would create a circular depandancy. This was quite a few rpm versions ago (I've used essentially these same specs locally for years). It appears not to cause a problem now, so I've removed it. I'd like leave Class:XSAccessor out of the requires. It's optional for Rose::Object and would prevent Rose::Object from being in epel6 since Class:XSAccessor is not in epel6. Also, could you tell me how you are generating the missing requires? I'd like to know so I can catch these ahead of time. Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc17.src.rpm
Changes are ok. Package is APPROVED. For finding the requirement, I am going though the content of the source tarball. I am looking for modules which are loaded by 'use' or 'require' for tests and lib|scripts|... I add only the modules which could be packed separately (e.g. lib, Test::More). The modules which are needed only for tests, I add only to BR. If some module can be loaded due to any condition I also don't add it.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Rose-Object Short Description: Simple object base class Owners: wfp Branches: f16 f17 el6 InitialCC: perl-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc17
perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.el6
perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc16
perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
It seems that you forget to build perl-Rose-Object for rawhide (Fedora 18). I can't continue the rest of your reviews (perl-Rose-DateTime, ...) without it.
Sorry about that, it should be there now.
perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
Package Change Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Rose-Object Short Description: Simple object base class Owners: wfp Branches: el7
Git done (by process-git-requests). Please use epel7, not el7 in the future. Thanks!