https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111181
Benedikt Morbach <bmorb...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bmorb...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Benedikt Morbach <bmorb...@redhat.com> ---
Note: This is an unofficial/preliminary review
> 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
> "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
> licensecheck in /home/bmorbach/fedora-review/1111181-perl-WWW-
> DuckDuckGo/licensecheck.txt
> [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/WWW
> (perl-WWW-Mechanize, perl-WWW-Bugzilla, kgb-bot-client, perl-WWW-
> RobotRules, perl-Test-WWW-Selenium, perl-WWW-Salesforce, perl-WWW-
> Babelfish, perl-WWW-Splunk, perl-WWW-Search, perl-WWW-Shorten, perl-WWW-
> OrangeHRM-Client, perl-WWW-Mechanize-GZip, perl-WWW-GoodData, perl-WWW-
> Pastebin-PastebinCom-Create, perl-WWW-Mechanize-TreeBuilder, perl-WWW-
> Google-Contacts)
fine, as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Directory_Ownership
> [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.
> [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [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]: 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).
It requires its own contents, but that seems to work fine.
I can't find anything in the guidelines about that though.
> [x]: Package functions as described.
> [x]: Latest version is packaged.
> [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
> translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
> [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>
>
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo-0.016-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
> perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo-0.016-1.fc21.src.rpm
> perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https ->
> HTTP
> perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http ->
> HTTP
> perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP
> perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
bogus
>
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> # rpmlint perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo
> perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https ->
> HTTP
> perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http ->
> HTTP
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
> # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
bogus
>
> Requires
> --------
> perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.2)
> perl(HTTP::Request)
> perl(JSON)
> perl(LWP::UserAgent)
> perl(Moo)
> perl(URI)
> perl(URI::QueryParam)
> perl(WWW::DuckDuckGo::Icon)
> perl(WWW::DuckDuckGo::Link)
> perl(WWW::DuckDuckGo::ZeroClickInfo)
>
>
>
> Provides
> --------
> perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo:
> perl(WWW::DDG)
> perl(WWW::DuckDuckGo)
> perl(WWW::DuckDuckGo::Icon)
> perl(WWW::DuckDuckGo::Link)
> perl(WWW::DuckDuckGo::ZeroClickInfo)
> perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo
>
>
>
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/WWW/WWW-DuckDuckGo-0.016.tar.gz :
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
> 675b5fd8b1cfe62b13229f42e6282ce0d61c8fd4574af9a2c3aaad75617a6fc3
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> 675b5fd8b1cfe62b13229f42e6282ce0d61c8fd4574af9a2c3aaad75617a6fc3
>
>
> Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
> Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1111181
> Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
> Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl
> Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell,
> R, PHP, Ruby
> Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
