[Bug 1242663] Review Request: perl-Hash-Layout - Hashes with predefined levels, composite keys and default values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242663 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Hash-Layout-1.02-2.fc2 ||2 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-07-29 21:10:06 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Hash-Layout-1.02-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- 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
[Bug 1242663] Review Request: perl-Hash-Layout - Hashes with predefined levels, composite keys and default values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242663 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Hash-Layout-1.02-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Hash-Layout-1.02-2.fc22 -- 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
[Bug 1242663] Review Request: perl-Hash-Layout - Hashes with predefined levels, composite keys and default values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242663 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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
[Bug 1242663] Review Request: perl-Hash-Layout - Hashes with predefined levels, composite keys and default values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242663 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Hash-Layout-1.02-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- 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
[Bug 1242663] Review Request: perl-Hash-Layout - Hashes with predefined levels, composite keys and default values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242663 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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
[Bug 1242663] Review Request: perl-Hash-Layout - Hashes with predefined levels, composite keys and default values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242663 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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
[Bug 1242663] Review Request: perl-Hash-Layout - Hashes with predefined levels, composite keys and default values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242663 --- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr --- (In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #1) Issues: t/99_pod.t .. skipped: Test::Pod 1.14 required t/99_podcoverage.t .. skipped: Test::Pod::Coverage 1.04 required Looks like you should BR perl(Test::Pod) and perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) Indeed. Not sure how I missed that. Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Hash-Layout/perl-Hash-Layout.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Hash-Layout/perl-Hash-Layout-1.02-2.fc22.src.rpm When built in mock, this version of the package runs all the tests. -- 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
[Bug 1242663] Review Request: perl-Hash-Layout - Hashes with predefined levels, composite keys and default values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242663 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Great. However, instead of Take into account review comments I would have said what was done, e.g. Added BR perl(Test::Pod) and perl(Test::Pod::Coverage). Always good to be explicit. APPROVED. -- 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
[Bug 1242663] Review Request: perl-Hash-Layout - Hashes with predefined levels, composite keys and default values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242663 Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr --- Thanks for the review. Requesting SCM. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Hash-Layout Short Description: Hashes with predefined levels, composite keys and default values Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Hash-Layout/ Owners: eseyman Branches: f22 f23 InitialCC: perl-sig -- 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
[Bug 1242663] Review Request: perl-Hash-Layout - Hashes with predefined levels, composite keys and default values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242663
Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
t/99_pod.t .. skipped: Test::Pod 1.14 required
t/99_podcoverage.t .. skipped: Test::Pod::Coverage 1.04 required
Looks like you should BR perl(Test::Pod) and perl(Test::Pod::Coverage)
= 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. 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/1242663-perl-Hash-
Layout/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/Hash(perl-Hash-Case, perl-Hash-Flatten,
perl-Hash-MoreUtils, perl-Hash-Merge, perl-Hash-WithDefaults, perl-
Hash-MultiValue, perl-Hash-Merge-Simple, perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-
Compat)
[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.
[x]: 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 20480 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]: 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]: 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:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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).
[x]:
