[Bug 794985] Review Request: perl-Data-AMF - Serialize/deserialize Adobe's AMF (ActionMessageFormat) data
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Feb 21 14:52:19 UTC 2012
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=794985
--- Comment #2 from Petr Ĺ abata <psabata at redhat.com> 2012-02-21 09:52:18 EST ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[-]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST 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]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[!]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/794985/Data-AMF-0.09.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 51f3fe689f3d0b331c6ab14e03478b1b
MD5SUM upstream package : 51f3fe689f3d0b331c6ab14e03478b1b
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
FIX: Don't depend directly on perl packages, use the 'perl(Module::Name)'
syntax instead. Remove all your perl-* BuildRequires.
FIX: Make sure you BuildRequire the following: perl(constant),
perl(Any::Moose), perl(Carp), perl(Cwd), perl(DateTime), perl(File::Path),
perl(File::Spec), perl(Scalar::Util), perl(Spiffy), perl(Test::More),
perl(UNIVERSAL::require), perl(XML::LibXML), perl(YAML::Base), and
perl(YAML::Node).
TIP: The number of spaces between your email and version in the changelog
header is a bit weird. Is there a reason for this?
TODO: Drop %defattr from %files. This is no longer needed.
FIX: Your %doc is empty. Include the relevant documentation, e.g. '%doc
Changes LICENSE README'.
FIX: Remove all your perl-* explicit Requires. One of the reasons is the one I
mentioned earlier, another is rpmbuild generates those (or most of, nothing's
perfect) automatically, hence you only have to Require those: perl(DateTime)
and perl(XML::LibXML)
"FIX" items are blockers.
I see you've also submitted other Perl packages. I'll do the reviews and
sponsor you if you manage to fix everything :)
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.1
External plugins:
--
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