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=802377

Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com 2012-03-12 09:37:57 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. [x]: 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: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -nu) [-]: 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. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. (FSF address) [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/contyk/src/review/802377/Env-Sanctify-1.04.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 304b28041d75f64da4551e4db238d354 MD5SUM upstream package : 304b28041d75f64da4551e4db238d354 [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. (Patched) [-]: 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. [x]: 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 Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. (It's obvious) [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. [-]: 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 some missing build dependencies (required by bundled Module::Install), namely base, Cwd, File::Path, and File::Spec. The package builds without them at the moment, though. NOTE: I guess you're going to maintain EPEL branches as well so the usual BuildRoot/%defattr/%clean stuff is okay. TODO: Incorrent FSF address in the licence. Notify upstream, please.

No blockers. Approving.

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=802377

Paul Howarth paul@city-fan.org changed:

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

--- Comment #3 from Paul Howarth paul@city-fan.org 2012-03-12 10:13:10 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Env-Sanctify Short Description: Lexically scoped sanctification of %ENV Owners: pghmcfc Branches: EL-5 EL-6 F-15 F-16 F-17 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=802377

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=802377

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-12 11:14:17 EDT --- perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.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=802377

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-12 11:15:00 EDT --- perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.fc17

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=802377

Paul Howarth paul@city-fan.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |803057

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=802377

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-25 23:56:18 EDT --- perl-Env-Sanctify-1.06-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable 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=802377

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-26 14:00:02 EDT --- perl-Env-Sanctify-1.06-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable 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=802377

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-30 14:05:39 EDT --- perl-Env-Sanctify-1.06-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable 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=802377

Paul Howarth paul@city-fan.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |perl-Env-Sanctify-1.06-1.fc | |18 Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-03-30 14:08:25