Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

Julian C. Dunn jdunn@aquezada.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

Julian C. Dunn jdunn@aquezada.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |619644

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

Bug 611372 depends on bug 619644, which changed state.

Bug 619644 Summary: request for update of Perl-Net-OAuth to 0.27 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619644

What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

--- Comment #4 from Julian C. Dunn jdunn@aquezada.com 2010-12-02 00:10:56 EST --- I don't see this problem; my webhost is up for me. The following URLs return data:

SPEC: http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian/devel/fedora/perl-Net-Twitter.spec SRPM: http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian/devel/fedora/perl-Net-Twitter-3.14002-1...

Note that I've bumped this to version 3.14002 since it's been a while and a new version was released.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

--- Comment #6 from Julian C. Dunn jdunn@aquezada.com 2010-12-11 23:24:52 EST --- I've been waiting for the maintainer of Net::OAuth to upgrade to a supported version - bug 619644 was marked as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE but I still don't see it in F14.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

--- Comment #8 from Julian C. Dunn jdunn@aquezada.com 2011-03-16 13:18:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7)

Is someone still working on this? I need the Net::Twitter::Lite module and there doesn't seem to be an RPM for it currently. Any chance we'll get one in the near future?

Hi Steven,

I would love to, but I need the maintainer of Net::OAuth to push the upgraded version before I can work on this further. See bug 619644.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

Julian C. Dunn jdunn@aquezada.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard|NotReady |

--- Comment #10 from Julian C. Dunn jdunn@aquezada.com 2012-03-12 01:39:15 EDT --- Steven, et. al:

I'm ready to give this another shot. Here are the new spec and SRPM files:

http://assets.juliandunn.net/fedorapkg/perl-Net-Twitter.spec http://assets.juliandunn.net/fedorapkg/perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc16.src.r...

I've tested with mock, it seems okay now. Can someone review this and push it forward if it's good to go?

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

--- Comment #12 from Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com 2012-03-15 12:19:19 EDT --- Package Review ==============

Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated

==== Generic ==== [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. [-]: 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. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [-]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [-]: 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. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/contyk/src/review/611372/Net-Twitter-3.18001.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 88665d245f72b48ee87817edb5906d00 MD5SUM upstream package : 88665d245f72b48ee87817edb5906d00 [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 a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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 is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: 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. [-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues: TODO: There are several missing build dependencies. Although they're somehow pulled in during the build now, it might not be the case in the future and they should be added. Namely: - perl(base), perl(lib), perl(Carp), perl(Encode), perl(HTTP::Response), perl(Net::Netrc), and perl(Time::HiRes) - perl(LWP::UserAgent) >= 5.819 (actually required in the code)

TODO: BuildRoot tag and, buildroot removal in %install and the %clean section are all obsolete now and should be removed unless you plan to package this for EPEL.

TODO: The same applies to %defattr in your $files section.

TODO: rpmbuild tries to detect perl dependencies these days so you don't have to explicitly mention them in your Requires. Actually, having them there adds duplicates to the resulting RPM package dependencies. Please, remove those from your Requires: - perl(Data::Visitor::Callback), perl(Digest::SHA), perl(HTML::Entities), perl(HTTP::Request::Common), perl(JSON), perl(List::Util), perl(Moose::Exporter), perl(Moose::Role), perl(MooseX::Aliases), perl(MooseX::Role::Parameterized), perl(Scalar::Util), and perl(URI::Escape). - You also list dependencies only needed for build, those should be removed too: perl(Crypt::SSLeay) >= 0.5, perl(Digest::HMAC_SHA1), perl(File::Spec), perl(LWP::UserAgent) >= 2.032 - And finally, you should also remove underspecified autogenerated runtime dependencies from the resulting RPM package if you require specific versions in your package. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering for some info about this. You'll have to filter the following: perl(DateTime), perl(DateTime::Format::Strptime), perl(Devel::StackTrace), perl(Moose), perl(Net::OAuth), perl(Try::Tiny), and perl(URI)

Those wouldn't normally block the review but since this is your first package, I'd like to see those fixed before getting further.

Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git External plugins:

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

--- Comment #14 from Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com 2012-03-23 05:49:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13)

(In reply to comment #12)

Hi Petr,

I think I've fixed all these problems, and I have one question before asking for a re-review. To your last point about whether the package needs specific versions of runtime libraries: Is that something that I should infer from the software's Makefile.PL? The actual code doesn't "use" any particular versions of the libraries upon which it depends.

Well, that depends. You should always inspect the code, the project Makefile.PL/Build.PL and META.* files before you decide.

In this case, LWP::UserAgent 5.819 is used in tests so it should be buildrequired instead of 2.032 specified in Makefile.PL (and META.yml).

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

--- Comment #16 from Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com 2012-03-27 09:30:46 EDT --- Looking at the changes...

You've added the required build time dependencies, including the optional ones. OK.

You've removed %defattr, the BuildRoot tag, buildroot removal in %install but you've kept the %clean section. You could just drop it entirely. Sort of OK.

About the runtime dependencies -- sadly, rpmbuild doesn't detect everything. It usually fails with 'use's and 'require's in indented blocks, for example. I see you've just removed them all. I think you're missing some deps now but I'll have to check that again...

I usually respect the versions in Makefile/META since those are the versions the original author developed and tested the module with. However, as I said before, it's up to you :)

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

--- Comment #18 from Julian C. Dunn jdunn@aquezada.com 2012-03-27 11:19:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17)

So, after going through the deps again, I see only perl(Net::Netrc) doesn't get autodetected and you should require it explicitly.

I left that out deliberately since the author says reading credentials from .netrc is an optional feature; the "require" is wrapped in an "if" statement in the code. Do you think it should be included as a dep unconditionally? I'm happy to include it as an extra Requires if you think it makes sense.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

Julian C. Dunn jdunn@aquezada.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #20 from Julian C. Dunn jdunn@aquezada.com 2012-03-27 12:52:50 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Net-Twitter Short Description: A Perl interface to the Twitter API Owners: jdunn Branches: f15 f16 f17 InitialCC: perl-sig

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-27 15:22:28 EDT --- perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc16

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-28 01:57:06 EDT --- perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1. |perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1. |fc16 |fc15

--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-07 23:33:07 EDT --- perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.