[Bug 839744] New: Review Request: perl-Rose-DateTime - DateTime helper functions and objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
Bug ID: 839744 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Clone Of: 839742 Version: rawhide Depends On: 839742 Priority: unspecified CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-Rose-DateTime - DateTime helper functions and objects Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: wfp5p@virginia.edu Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-DateTime.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-2.fc17.src.rpm
Description: The Rose::DateTime::* modules provide a few convenience functions and objects for use with DateTime dates.
This requires Rose::Object
Fedora Account System Username: wfp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |839751
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |839754
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
--- Comment #1 from Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu --- Updated:
Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-DateTime.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-3.fc17.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
Jitka Plesnikova jplesnik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jplesnik@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jplesnik@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova jplesnik@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present [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) [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-]: 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. [-]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate 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. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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 systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [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.
TODO: * Remove DateTime and Rose::Object from Requires: to clean up duplicity $ rpm -qp --requires perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-3.fc18.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.0) 1 perl(Carp) 2 perl(DateTime) 1 perl(DateTime::Infinite) 1 perl(Exporter) 2 perl(Rose::Object) 1 perl(strict) 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
* Add to BuildRequires perl(Test::More) -- ./t/parser.t:5, ./t/locale.t:5, ... perl(Test::Pod) >= 1.00 -- ./t/pod.t:7 perl(Exporter) -- ./lib/Rose/DateTime/Util.pm:10
Please update the update the requires in spec.
Package is APPROVED
I was able to build the package only for rawhide (Fedora 18) on koji. The build failed for Fedora 17, because perl-Rose-Object is not in repository yet. I am not sure, but you should probably commit it when testing of perl-Rose-Object finish for Fedora 16/17.
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09 External plugins:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
--- Comment #3 from Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu --- perl-Rose-Object (and it's requirements) are not yet in Fedora 16 and 17 because they've not yet aged long enough in testing. It's going to make the rest of the packages a low process as we wait a week for each one to clear.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Rose-DateTime Short Description: DateTime helper functions and objects Owners: wfp Branches: f16 f17 el6 InitialCC: perl-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.fc16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-08-09 18:56:41
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
--- Comment #13 from Bill Pemberton wfp5p@worldbroken.com --- Package Change Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Rose-DateTime Short Description: Simple object base class Owners: wfp Branches: el7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
Bill Pemberton wfp5p@worldbroken.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla