5:40 a.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859893
Bug ID: 859893
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: notting(a)redhat.com,
package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Type - Functions to validate
data types in test files
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
Reporter: emmanuel(a)seyman.fr
Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Product: Fedora
Spec URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Test-Type/perl-Test-Type.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Test-Type/perl-Test-Type-1....
Description:
The Test::Type module provides functions that allow you to validate data types
in test files.
Fedora Account System Username: eseyman
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
3:56 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 859893] Review Request: perl-Test-Type - Functions to validate data types in test files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859893
Robin Lee <robinlee.sysu(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |robinlee.sysu(a)gmail.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |robinlee.sysu(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee <robinlee.sysu(a)gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Reguires:.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[-]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (Test-Type-1.1.0.tar.gz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: perl-Test-Type-1.1.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
perl-Test-Type-1.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint perl-Test-Type
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
perl-Test-Type-1.1.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.1)
perl(Carp)
perl(Data::Validate::Type)
perl(Exporter)
perl(Test::More)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
Provides
--------
perl-Test-Type-1.1.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm:
perl(Test::Type) = 1.1.0
perl-Test-Type = 1.1.0-1.fc19
SHA256-sum check
-------------
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/A/AU/AUBERTG/Test-Type-1.1.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
230dae4386d60247a80bdbb5f02e2bcf7784cfceb552ed155084c4d255197256
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
230dae4386d60247a80bdbb5f02e2bcf7784cfceb552ed155084c4d255197256
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -k sha256 -b
859893
Approved by cheeselee
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:44 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 859893] Review Request: perl-Test-Type - Functions to validate data types in test files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859893
Emmanuel Seyman <emmanuel(a)seyman.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman <emmanuel(a)seyman.fr> ---
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Test-Type
Short Description: Functions to validate data types in test files
Owners: eseyman
Branches: f17 f18
InitialCC: perl-sig
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
7:54 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 859893] Review Request: perl-Test-Type - Functions to validate data types in test files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859893
--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6:16 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 859893] Review Request: perl-Test-Type - Functions to validate data types in test files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859893
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6:16 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 859893] Review Request: perl-Test-Type - Functions to validate data types in test files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859893
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
perl-Test-Dist-VersionSync-1.1.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for
Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-Dist-VersionSync-1.1.0-...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6:16 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 859893] Review Request: perl-Test-Type - Functions to validate data types in test files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859893
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
perl-Test-Dist-VersionSync-1.1.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for
Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-Dist-VersionSync-1.1.0-...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:37 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 859893] Review Request: perl-Test-Type - Functions to validate data types in test files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859893
Emmanuel Seyman <emmanuel(a)seyman.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed| |2012-10-04 17:37:02
--- Comment #6 from Emmanuel Seyman <emmanuel(a)seyman.fr> ---
perl-Test-Type has been build on all branches and merged in rawhide.
Again, thank you, both of you, for contributing to this review.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4260
days inactive
4270
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
7 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Red Hat Bugzilla