[Bug 909144] New: Review Request: perl-File-CheckTree - Run many file-test checks on a tree
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909144
Bug ID: 909144 Summary: Review Request: perl-File-CheckTree - Run many file-test checks on a tree Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: ppisar@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-File-CheckTree/perl-File-CheckTree.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-File-CheckTree/perl-File-CheckTree-4.42-... Description: File::CheckTree::validate() routine takes a single multi-line string consisting of directives, each containing a file name plus a file test to try on it. (The file test may also be a "cd", causing subsequent relative file names to be interpreted relative to that directory.) After the file test you may put || die to make it a fatal error if the file test fails. The default is || warn. The file test may optionally have a "!' prepended to test for the opposite condition. If you do a cd and then list some relative file names, you may want to indent them slightly for readability. If you supply your own die() or warn() message, you can use $file to interpolate the file name.
Fedora Account System Username: ppisar
----- This package is intended for rawhide only. It will dual-live with core package after sub-packaging it from perl.spec and it will have been removed from core when releasing perl 5.20.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909144
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- File-CheckTree has been sub-packaged in perl-5.16.2-256.fc19.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909144
Jitka Plesnikova jplesnik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jplesnik@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jplesnik@redhat.com
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909144
Jitka Plesnikova jplesnik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova jplesnik@redhat.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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. [x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
$ rpmlint ./perl-File-CheckTree-4.42-1.fc19.*.rpm ./perl-File-CheckTree.spec perl-File-CheckTree.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti perl-File-CheckTree.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cd -> CD, dc, Cd perl-File-CheckTree.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prepended -> pretended, prep ended, prep-ended perl-File-CheckTree.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti perl-File-CheckTree.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cd -> CD, dc, Cd perl-File-CheckTree.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prepended -> pretended, prep ended, prep-ended 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint is ok.
$ rpm -qp --requires perl-File-CheckTree-4.42-1.fc19.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl >= 0:5.006 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2) 1 perl(Cwd) 1 perl(Exporter) 1 perl(File::Spec) 1 perl(if) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(warnings) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Requires are ok.
$ rpm -qp --provides perl-File-CheckTree-4.42-1.fc19.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(File::CheckTree) = 4.42 1 perl-File-CheckTree = 4.42-1.fc19 Provides are ok.
MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/R/RJ/RJBS/File-CheckTree-4.42.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 66fb417f8ff8a5e5b7ea25606156e70e204861c59fa8c3831925b4dd3f155f8a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 66fb417f8ff8a5e5b7ea25606156e70e204861c59fa8c3831925b4dd3f155f8a
Package is good.
Approved.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909144
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-File-CheckTree Short Description: Run many file-test checks on a tree Owners: ppisar jplesnik psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909144
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909144
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |perl-File-CheckTree-4.42-1. | |fc19 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2013-03-05 09:47:22
--- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review and the repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla