[Bug 800102] Review Request: perl-WWW-Google-Contacts - Use Perl to access, list and edit Google Contacts

Fri Mar 16 18:53:45 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=800102

--- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com> 2012-03-16 14:53:44 EDT ---
Package Review, generated by fedora-review 0.1.2
==============

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.
     Yes, GPL+ or Artistic.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
     Yes, mocked for F18 (rawhide).
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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
[x]: 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 meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates 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.
     Installed into F15 mock chroot.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
     ...please see below regarding duplicate requires.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

$ rpmlint perl-WWW-Google-Contacts-0.33-2.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint perl-WWW-Google-Contacts-0.33-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
perl-WWW-Google-Contacts.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/perl-WWW-Google-Contacts-0.33/LICENSE
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
WWW-Google-Contacts-0.33.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : 3e33a1d0dc9f50fdd45652783b461383
  MD5SUM upstream package : 3e33a1d0dc9f50fdd45652783b461383

[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).

There are nine duplicate Requires here:
rpm -qp --requires perl-WWW-Google-Contacts-0.33-2.fc18.noarch.rpm 
perl(File::Slurp)
perl(LWP::UserAgent)
perl(Moose)
perl(MooseX::Role::Parameterized)
perl(MooseX::Types)
perl(Net::Google::AuthSub)
perl(Perl6::Junction)
perl(Try::Tiny)
perl(XML::Simple)

These are duplicates because RPM automatically detects some Perl requirements,
but cpanspec can be overzealous in listing the requirements also. You can
remove these explicit Requires from your .spec file, and RPM will still put
them into the built package.

There is an odd Provides here:
rpm -qp --provides perl-WWW-Google-Contacts-0.33-2.fc18.noarch.rpm 
perl(Moose::Meta::Attribute::Custom::Trait::XmlField) = 0.33

>From what I can tell, this is an artifact of how Moose works, combined with
RPM's automatic provider generator. I'm not familiar enough with Moose to know
if the package's source code is correct on this point, but regardless, it is so
obscure that I wouldn't worry about it.

[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
     The tests pass during the build :)
[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.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Avi, please take care of the following issues:
1) Let me know if you intend to package this for EPEL 5 or 6. If so, you'll
need to add the buildroot tag as described above, and keep the defattr()
section. If not, you can remove the defattr() section.

2) Fix the Requires duplicates, as described above.

3) File a bug in the upstream CPAN bug tracker to fix the FSF address, and
paste the link here. (You don't have to patch your package for this; an
upstream bug is enough.)

If you do these, I'll approve this package and proxy sponsor you as a
co-maintainer.

-- 
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.