[Bug 1053665] New: Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
Bug ID: 1053665 Summary: Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppisar@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-perlindex/perl-perlindex.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-perlindex/perl-perlindex-1.606-1.fc21.sr... Description: Perlindex is a program to index and search the perl documentation. It provides Text::English module implementing Porter stemming algorithm.
Fedora Account System Username: ppisar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
Jakub Jedelsky jakub.jedelsky@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jakub.jedelsky@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jedelsky jakub.jedelsky@gmail.com --- Package seems good for me.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [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]: 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]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Text(perl-Text-ParseWords, perl-Text- Unidecode) - perl specific issue. [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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]: 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
Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. [x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== 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-perlindex-1.606-1.fc20.noarch.rpm perl-perlindex-1.606-1.fc20.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint perl-perlindex 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- perl-perlindex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.2) perl(AnyDBM_File) perl(Config) perl(Fcntl) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Find) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(Term::ReadKey) perl(Text::English) perl(less)
Provides -------- perl-perlindex: perl(Text::English) perl-perlindex
Source checksums ---------------- http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/U/UL/ULPFR/perlindex-1.606.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3b309ec091d099cdc1a1abac5e00ec5787f3426241503449658d5ea91dff871e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3b309ec091d099cdc1a1abac5e00ec5787f3426241503449658d5ea91dff871e
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jedelsky jakub.jedelsky@gmail.com --- Maybe a little hint - this package is not so perl module as a standalone utility so why not to call it just "perlindex"?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- The package delivers Text::English module which is actually the reason why I package it.
If you are fine with the review, please don't forget to set the flag and assign this report to you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jedelsky jakub.jedelsky@gmail.com --- Ok, then it should be nice name.
I forgot to mention, that I'm not a member of the packagers group yet so I can't be reviewer officially. I leave it blank for another reviewers.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |cickumqt@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |cickumqt@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- What the .. ?? XD Jakub you should declare that you are not a packager yet first :)
Petr, is it proper to append this option now?
NO_PACKLIST=1
----------------------- PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
--- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- NO_PACKLIST Makefile.PL argument is supported since ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.75_01 which is available since Fedora 21. I guess this could be better solution instead of removing the .packlist files in %install section. Thank your for the hint and the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-perlindex Short Description: Index and search the perl documentation Owners: ppisar jplesnik psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |perl-perlindex-1.606-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2014-01-17 10:47:49
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Getopt-ArgvFile-1.11-24.el7 perl-PAR-1.015-4.el7 perl-PAR-Packer-1.041-2.el7 perl-Tk-Canvas-GradientColor-1.06-10.el7 perl-Tk-ColoredButton-1.05-15.el7 perl-Tk-EntryCheck-0.04-15.el7 perl-Tk-Getopt-0.51-3.el7 perl-Tk-Pod-0.9943-6.el7 perl-perlindex-1.606-10.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-fe2035adcd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Getopt-ArgvFile-1.11-24.el7 perl-PAR-1.015-4.el7 perl-PAR-Packer-1.041-2.el7 perl-Tk-Canvas-GradientColor-1.06-10.el7 perl-Tk-ColoredButton-1.05-15.el7 perl-Tk-EntryCheck-0.04-15.el7 perl-Tk-Getopt-0.51-3.el7 perl-Tk-Pod-0.9943-6.el7 perl-perlindex-1.606-10.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-fe2035adcd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Getopt-ArgvFile-1.11-24.el7, perl-PAR-1.015-4.el7, perl-PAR-Packer-1.041-2.el7, perl-Tk-Canvas-GradientColor-1.06-10.el7, perl-Tk-ColoredButton-1.05-15.el7, perl-Tk-EntryCheck-0.04-15.el7, perl-Tk-Getopt-0.51-3.el7, perl-Tk-Pod-0.9943-6.el7, perl-perlindex-1.606-10.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-fe2035adcd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Getopt-ArgvFile-1.11-24.el7, perl-PAR-1.015-4.el7, perl-PAR-Packer-1.041-2.el7, perl-Tk-Canvas-GradientColor-1.06-10.el7, perl-Tk-ColoredButton-1.05-15.el7, perl-Tk-EntryCheck-0.04-15.el7, perl-Tk-Getopt-0.51-3.el7, perl-Tk-Pod-0.9943-6.el7, perl-perlindex-1.606-10.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla