[Bug 854596] New: Review Request: perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate - GSSAPI based Authentication Plugin for LWP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854596
Bug ID: 854596 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate - GSSAPI based Authentication Plugin for LWP Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: steve.traylen@cern.ch Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://straylen.web.cern.ch/straylen/rpms/perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate/perl-LWP... SRPM URL: http://straylen.web.cern.ch/straylen/rpms/perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate/perl-LWP... Description: WWW-Negotiate supporting Webservers are IIS or Apache with mod_auth_kerb for example.
Fedora Account System Username: stevetraylen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854596
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |misc@zarb.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |misc@zarb.org Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854596
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- Do you plan to push it to EPEL 5 ? If not, could you remove the obsolete part of the spec ( %defattr, %clean, etc ), since that would mean less cruft to remove later ( and avoid people copying them over and over when that's not needed since a few years ).
Once the issue fixed, I will approve it.
Also, could you ask upstream to ship the license with the tarball ( not blocking if they do not do it )
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5
===== 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. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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. [-]: 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]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [-]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Cannot unpack rpms (using --prebuilt?)
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5 [!]: 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 (LWP-Authen-Negotiate-0.08.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate-0.08-1.fc17.src.rpm perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate-0.08-1.fc17.noarch.rpm perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US auth -> auto, Ruth, author perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kerb -> berk, herb, verb perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US auth -> auto, Ruth, author perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kerb -> berk, herb, verb 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US auth -> auto, Ruth, author perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kerb -> berk, herb, verb 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate-0.08-1.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) perl(AutoLoader) perl(Exporter) perl(GSSAPI) >= 0.18 perl(LWP::Debug) perl(strict) perl(warnings)
Provides -------- perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate-0.08-1.fc17.noarch.rpm:
perl(LWP::Authen::Negotiate) = 0.08 perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate = 0.08-1.fc17
MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/LWP/LWP-Authen-Negotiate-0.08.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 50948e19c532b7864e8aaafc6874415ca075b3ea14bc73db58235c475dac4abb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50948e19c532b7864e8aaafc6874415ca075b3ea14bc73db58235c475dac4abb
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (a5c4ced) last change: 2012-07-22 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 854596
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854596
--- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch --- Hi Michael,
I do indeed plan to build for EPEL5 as well.
As for the LICENSE file I have requested upstream.
https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=79494
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854596
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- Well, i personnally prefer to have separate spec ( and cleaned one ) for fedora and epel, but I know some people prefer to have 1 single spec for all target. Anyway, provided you fix the error when importing : [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names).
The package is good for me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854596
--- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- Steve, you have forgot to ask for the repository : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854596
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate Short Description: GSSAPI based Authentication Plugin for LWP Owners: stevetraylen Branches: f17 f18 el6 el5 InitialCC: perl-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854596
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854596
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854596
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2014-06-03 08:15:01
--- Comment #7 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch --- Looks like this was actually released in dists ages ago, closing.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla