[Bug 747437] Review Request: perl-Data-Properties - Persistent properties

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=747437

--- Comment #2 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha at fedoraproject.org> 2011-10-26 06:31:46 EDT ---
[x] package passes
[-] not applicable
[!] package fails

== MUST ==

[x] rpmlint output
  $ rpmlint perl-Data-Properties*
  perl-Data-Properties.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util ->
til, utile, until
  perl-Data-Properties.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util ->
til, utile, until
  2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
    => This can be ignored

[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license

[!] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
    => cf below
[!] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file must be included in %doc
    => cf below

[x] The spec file must be written in American English
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL
  $ sha1sum Data-Properties-0.02.tar.gz
  45082b0a2a4e3f9eeaae0cd4838fb9808fea227f  Data-Properties-0.02.tar.gz

[x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture
[-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[-] 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
[x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[x] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review
[x] 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.
[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly
[x] Each package must consistently use macros
[x] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[-] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[-] 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
[-] Subpackages requiring the base package
[-] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built
[-] 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
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

== SHOULD ==

[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
[-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[-] 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
[-] 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
[-] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts

== To fix ==

About the license, you clarified in the spec file that it is ASL 2.0. However,
the licensing guidelines say:
  In such cases, it is acceptable to receive confirmation of licensing via
  email. A copy of the email, containing full headers, must be included as
  a source file (marked as %doc) in the package. This file is considered
  part of the license text.
   
~http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

Please include the email in the package.

This is the only blocker.

-- 
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.