[Bug 567848] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Types-JSON - JSON data types for Moose
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Mar 2 22:50:06 UTC 2010
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567848
Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |steve.traylen at cern.ch
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |steve.traylen at cern.ch
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2010-03-02 17:50:03 EST ---
Review: perl-MooseX-Types-JSON
Bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567848
Date: March 2nd 2010
Scratch Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2026592
See at bottom for what did not pass:
* MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.
PASS
$ rpmlint SPECS/perl-MooseX-Types-JSON.spec \
SRPMS/perl-MooseX-Types-JSON-0.02-1.fc12.src.rpm
RPMS/noarch/perl-MooseX-Types-JSON-0.02-1.fc12.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
* MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
PASS. Named as per perl module.
* MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name},
in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
PASS.
* MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
PASS.
* MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
GPL+ or Artistic in .spec file.
* MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Copyright 2009 Michael Langner, all rights reserved.
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
the
same terms as Perl itself.
* 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 must be included in %doc.
FAIL - see below.
* MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
PASS.
* MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
PASS.
* MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum
for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
PASS.
$ md5sum MooseX-Types-JSON-0.02.tar.gz ../SOURCES/MooseX-Types-JSON-0.02.tar.gz
e6eb8745f38051ff471755759e6006c8 MooseX-Types-JSON-0.02.tar.gz
e6eb8745f38051ff471755759e6006c8 ../SOURCES/MooseX-Types-JSON-0.02.tar.gz
* MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
PASS. See koji build above.
* MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in
the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch
MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that
the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture.
The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
PASS. Not relavent.
* MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires,
except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of
the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires
is optional. Apply common sense.
PASS. BR look sane.
* MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is
strictly forbidden
PASS. Not relavent.
* MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
PASS:
No shared libs.
* MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
PASS.
* MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package.
Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
PASS.
Not relocatable.
* MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it
does not create a directory that it uses, then it should
require a package which does create that directory.
PASS.
* MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the
spec file's %files listings.
PASS.
* MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files
section must include a %defattr(...) line.
PASS. defattr set, everything default.
* MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
PASS:
* MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
PASS.
* MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
PASS.
* MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
(The definition of large is left up to the packager's
best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large
can refer to either size or quantity).
PASS.no large docs.
* MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect
the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in
%doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
PASS.
* MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
PASS. - nothing to go in a devel.
* MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
PASS. - no static libs.
* MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
PASS. - no pkg-config files.
* MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
(e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so
(without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
PASS. - no .so files.
* MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require
the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
PASS. - no devel packages.
* MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.[21]
PASS. - no .la files.
* MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with
your explanation.
PASS. - no gui.
* MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by
other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first
package to be installed should own the files or directories
that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example,
that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of
the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package.
If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or
directory that another package owns, then please present
that at package review time.
FAIL. - See below.
* MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
PASS.
* MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
PASS.
* 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.
PASS.
* SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages,
if available.
PASS. None available.
* SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
PASS. See koji build.
* SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on
all supported architectures.
PASS. See koji build.
* SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
PASS. test functions pass.
* SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This
is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine
sanity.
PASS. None.
* SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
PASS. Not relavent.
* SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be
placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the
main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime,
e.g. gcc or gdb.
PASS. Not relavent.
* SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package
which provides the file instead of the file itself.
PASS. requires no filenames.
* SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make
sense.
PASS. man pages are present.
#########################################################################
Items with FAIL:
1) The README file contains a license statement. As such it should
be included as a %doc.
2) This package contains: /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/MooseX
but the package depends on perl-MooseX which contains exactly this
directory. In other words its not obvious to me at least why this
package should contain: /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/MooseX.
Steve
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list