Bug 1398690

=====================
| !! NON-BINDING !! |
|  Package Review   |
=====================

I did this preliminary package review as part of the process of
becoming a fedora packager, so a "real" review is still needed.

IMO, besides the unneccessary BuildRequires, the review
looks simple enough. Regardless, a link to a successful koji
scratch build would have been nice.


Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.

  Note: These BR are not needed: coreutils make findutils
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

Reviewer's Comment: The first 32 lines of the .spec file are not nicely
formatted at all (indentation with 8-space-tabs instead of simple spaces, no
empty lines for better readability, etc.) - although it seems that the
.spec file has been adapted from another package or a Perl package template,
because many already existing / approved perl package .specs look that way.


===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[-]: 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/Module/Extract(perl-Module-Extract-
     VERSION, perl-Module-Extract-Namespaces),
     /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Module(perl-Module-Implementation, perl-
     Module-Runtime)
[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
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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 10240 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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).
[?]: 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.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc26.noarch.rpm
          perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc26.src.rpm
perl-Module-Extract-Use.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eval -> veal, vela, val
perl-Module-Extract-Use.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pragmas -> pragmatism
perl-Module-Extract-Use.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eval -> veal, vela, val
perl-Module-Extract-Use.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pragmas -> pragmatism
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
perl-Module-Extract-Use (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0)
    perl(PPI)
    perl(strict)
    perl(subs)
    perl(vars)
    perl(warnings)



Provides
--------
perl-Module-Extract-Use:
    perl(Module::Extract::Use)
    perl-Module-Extract-Use



Source checksums
----------------
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/B/BD/BDFOY/Module-Extract-Use-1.04.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b2dba019d5dfde41217f10cfdc20ebd46c3deee00accef37097f1bf2597f5c9a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b2dba019d5dfde41217f10cfdc20ebd46c3deee00accef37097f1bf2597f5c9a


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1398690 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Hi Fabio,

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1)
> =====================
> | !! NON-BINDING !! |
> |  Package Review   |
> =====================
> 
> I did this preliminary package review as part of the process of
> becoming a fedora packager, so a "real" review is still needed.
> 
> IMO, besides the unneccessary BuildRequires, the review
> looks simple enough. Regardless, a link to a successful koji
> scratch build would have been nice.

OK, here's a scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16647335

> Issues:
> =======
> - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
>   are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> 
>   Note: These BR are not needed: coreutils make findutils
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

It looks like this comment is a remnant from an old version of the packaging guidlines, which now say:

It is important that your package list all necessary build dependencies using the BuildRequires: tag. You may assume that enough of an environment exists for RPM to function, to build packages and execute basic shell scripts, but you should not assume any other packages are present as RPM dependencies and anything brought into the buildroot by the build system may change over time. 

(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRequires_2)

So I think it is safest to include everything that is explicitly used during the package build.

> Reviewer's Comment: The first 32 lines of the .spec file are not nicely
> formatted at all (indentation with 8-space-tabs instead of simple spaces, no
> empty lines for better readability, etc.) - although it seems that the
> .spec file has been adapted from another package or a Perl package template,
> because many already existing / approved perl package .specs look that way.

This one is a matter of personal taste really and there are no guidelines about use of tabs, unless the use resulted in the spec not being legible to read. I think blocking on use of regular 8-space tabs (which I find helps line things up easily) would be stretching things a bit.

Thanks for the feedback.

(In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #2)
> Hi Fabio,
> 
> (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1)
> > =====================
> > | !! NON-BINDING !! |
> > |  Package Review   |
> > =====================
> > 
> > I did this preliminary package review as part of the process of
> > becoming a fedora packager, so a "real" review is still needed.
> > 
> > IMO, besides the unneccessary BuildRequires, the review
> > looks simple enough. Regardless, a link to a successful koji
> > scratch build would have been nice.
> 
> OK, here's a scratch build:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16647335
> 

Looks good!

> > Issues:
> > =======
> > - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
> >   are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> > 
> >   Note: These BR are not needed: coreutils make findutils
> >   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
> 
> It looks like this comment is a remnant from an old version of the packaging
> guidlines, which now say:
> 
> It is important that your package list all necessary build dependencies
> using the BuildRequires: tag. You may assume that enough of an environment
> exists for RPM to function, to build packages and execute basic shell
> scripts, but you should not assume any other packages are present as RPM
> dependencies and anything brought into the buildroot by the build system may
> change over time. 
> 
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
> Guidelines#BuildRequires_2)
> 
> So I think it is safest to include everything that is explicitly used during
> the package build.

Fair point, I did assume that fedora-review was up to snuff with the latest packaging guidelines concerning this - obviously, I was wrong.

> > Reviewer's Comment: The first 32 lines of the .spec file are not nicely
> > formatted at all (indentation with 8-space-tabs instead of simple spaces, no
> > empty lines for better readability, etc.) - although it seems that the
> > .spec file has been adapted from another package or a Perl package template,
> > because many already existing / approved perl package .specs look that way.
> 
> This one is a matter of personal taste really and there are no guidelines
> about use of tabs, unless the use resulted in the spec not being legible to
> read. I think blocking on use of regular 8-space tabs (which I find helps
> line things up easily) would be stretching things a bit.

Of course. I just wanted to mention it as "comment only", because - depending on the text editor configuration or environment - your .spec file might not look as intended.

> Thanks for the feedback.

URL Source addresses are usable. Ok.
Source archive is original (SHA-256: b2dba019d5dfde41217f10cfdc20ebd46c3deee00accef37097f1bf2597f5c9a). Ok.
Summary verified from lib/Module/Extract/Use.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/Module/Extract/Use.pm. OK.
License verified from lib/Module/Extract/Use.pm, examples/extract_modules, LICENSE. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.
Test::Manifest is not helpful. Ok.
Build-requires are Ok.
All test pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint  perl-Module-Extract-Use.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc26.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc26.noarch.rpm 
perl-Module-Extract-Use.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eval -> veal, vela, val
perl-Module-Extract-Use.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pragmas -> pragmatism
perl-Module-Extract-Use.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eval -> veal, vela, val
perl-Module-Extract-Use.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pragmas -> pragmatism
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc26.noarch.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                        0 Nov 28 11:02 /usr/share/doc/perl-Module-Extract-Use
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                     1329 Jan  4  2014 /usr/share/doc/perl-Module-Extract-Use/Changes
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                      477 Jan  4  2014 /usr/share/doc/perl-Module-Extract-Use/README
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                        0 Nov 28 11:02 /usr/share/doc/perl-Module-Extract-Use/examples
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                     2234 Jan  4  2014 /usr/share/doc/perl-Module-Extract-Use/examples/extract_modules
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                        0 Nov 28 11:02 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Module-Extract-Use
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                       69 Jan  4  2014 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Module-Extract-Use/LICENSE
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                     2246 Nov 28 11:02 /usr/share/man/man3/Module::Extract::Use.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                        0 Nov 28 11:02 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Module
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                        0 Nov 28 11:02 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Module/Extract
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                     4847 Jan  4  2014 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Module/Extract/Use.pm
File layout and permission are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
      1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0)
      1 perl(PPI)
      1 perl(strict)
      1 perl(subs)
      1 perl(vars)
      1 perl(warnings)
      1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
      1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
      1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
      1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
      1 perl(Module::Extract::Use) = 1.04
      1 perl-Module-Extract-Use = 1.04-2.fc26
The private Module::Extract::Use::Item module not provides.
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc26.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.

Package builds in F26 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16655383). Ok.

The package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.
Resolution: Package APPROVED.

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Module-Extract-Use

perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3ee549515d

perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-0a8ccddbbc

perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e0885fdb1f

perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-08051f4718

perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-0a8ccddbbc

perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-08051f4718

perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3ee549515d

perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e0885fdb1f

perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Module-Extract-Use-1.04-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.