[Bug 844589] Review Request: perl-Devel-Declare-Parser - Higher level interface to Devel-Declare

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Sep 4 08:48:26 UTC 2012 

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844589

--- Comment #2 from Simone Caronni <negativo17 at gmail.com> ---
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.
[-]: 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 Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[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
[-]: 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.
[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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[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.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[!]: 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 Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
     Note: Source0 (Devel-Declare-Parser-0.017.tar.gz)
[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.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: perl-Devel-Declare-Parser-0.017-1.fc17.src.rpm
          perl-Devel-Declare-Parser-0.017-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
perl-Devel-Declare-Parser.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers
-> parser, parses, parers
perl-Devel-Declare-Parser.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usualy
-> usual, usually, usual y
perl-Devel-Declare-Parser.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
subclassing -> sub classing, sub-classing, subclass
perl-Devel-Declare-Parser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
parsers -> parser, parses, parers
perl-Devel-Declare-Parser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
usualy -> usual, usually, usual y
perl-Devel-Declare-Parser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
subclassing -> sub classing, sub-classing, subclass
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

Requires
--------
perl-Devel-Declare-Parser-0.017-1.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

    perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)  
    perl(B::Compiling)  
    perl(B::Compiling) >= 0.02
    perl(B::Hooks::EndOfScope)  
    perl(B::Hooks::EndOfScope) >= 0.08
    perl(Carp)  
    perl(Data::Dumper)  
    perl(Devel::BeginLift)  
    perl(Devel::Declare)  
    perl(Devel::Declare) >= 0.006
    perl(Devel::Declare::Interface)  
    perl(Devel::Declare::Parser)  
    perl(Devel::Declare::Parser::Sublike)  
    perl(Exporter)  
    perl(Scalar::Util)  
    perl(base)  
    perl(strict)  
    perl(warnings)  

Provides
--------
perl-Devel-Declare-Parser-0.017-1.fc17.noarch.rpm:

    perl(Devel::Declare::Interface)  
    perl(Devel::Declare::Parser) = 0.017
    perl(Devel::Declare::Parser::Codeblock)  
    perl(Devel::Declare::Parser::Emulate)  
    perl(Devel::Declare::Parser::Method)  
    perl(Devel::Declare::Parser::Sublike)  
    perl-Devel-Declare-Parser = 0.017-1.fc17

MD5-sum check
-------------
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/E/EX/EXODIST/Devel-Declare-Parser-0.017.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
f95d58f74870ca9184fc49b3d8e0b831fc9f1a7ef293a80b4b678461c792aa14
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
f95d58f74870ca9184fc49b3d8e0b831fc9f1a7ef293a80b4b678461c792aa14

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

More information about the package-review mailing list