[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-11-29 22:52:10



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.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-eac4ab186a

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.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-2016-4f6c0fa947

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-eac4ab186a

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4f6c0fa947

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-NNTPClient-0.37-1.fc26



--- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar  ---
Thank you for the review and the 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267



--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-NNTPClient

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
BuildRequires ok

binary Requires ok

binary Provides ok

Looks good to me. Approved

Package Review
==

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


= 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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: 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]: 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 in

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267


--- Doc Text *updated* by Petr Pisar  ---
undefined


--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar  ---
(In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #1)
> Package name: Is there a reason for this package not being named
> perl-News-NNTPClient?
>
The reason is the upstream is called "NNTPClient"
. The guidelines say we should prefer
an upstream name.

> License: There is no license text other than a note in the README file and
> in the module itself, saying it can be redistributed or modified under the
> same terms of Perl itself. It would be nice to ask upstream to distribute a
> LICENSE file as well (not a blocker).
>
Reported as .

> Tests: Some tests on %check are failing, apparently, they rely on a running
> news server. Would you work on it, so it doesn't run these tests?

Yes. I patched them. First I tried to run them against Fedora's inn server, but
there is a bug in the inn daemon preventing from it.

Updated package is available on the same URL.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267



--- Comment #1 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
fedora-review complains about BuildRequires make and findutils, since those are
already included in the current minimum build environment.

Guidelines are vague on those since "RPM deps may change" and the definition of
"basic shell scripts" is not clear. So I believe those are up to the packager.

Package name: Is there a reason for this package not being named
perl-News-NNTPClient?

License: There is no license text other than a note in the README file and in
the module itself, saying it can be redistributed or modified under the same
terms of Perl itself. It would be nice to ask upstream to distribute a LICENSE
file as well (not a blocker).

Tests: Some tests on %check are failing, apparently, they rely on a running
news server. Would you work on it, so it doesn't run these 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||athoscribe...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|athoscribe...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=772618



-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org