[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
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=195303 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-11-02 23:43:47 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
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=195303 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Steve Traylen 2009-11-01 14:00:08 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-POE New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Owners: stevetraylen Response from owner of perl-POE in Fedora: I actually don't use POE that much anymore if you want to take them over for both Fedora and EPEL, they'd probably benefit from it :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE Alias: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||perl-POE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 06:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) > How is this not a bug in rpm itself? If you think it's a rpm bug, report it. (In reply to comment #9) >perl-POE-0.3501-2.fc5.noarch requires perl(POE::Resource::Controls) > Yet perl-POE clearly provides perl(POE::Resources::Controls) = 1903. Note "Resource" vs "Resources". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 12:05 EST --- Wait -- ok, something weird is happening. I see in the latest repoclosure reports that perl-POE is failing with an unsatisfied requires: Summary of broken packages in fedora-extras-5-i386: -- perl-POE-0.3501-2.fc5.noarch requires perl(POE::Resource::Controls) Yet perl-POE clearly provides perl(POE::Resources::Controls) = 1903. What's going on here? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 11:49 EST --- Ok, sounds like they should be filtered. (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > Are you saying that an unversioned Provides: A will satisfy Requires: A > > > >= 99? > > > > Yes. > > It'll also satisfy Requires: A < 99 at the same time :-) > > An unversioned provide is like providing all possible versions; it's like a > wildcard version. How is this not a bug in rpm itself? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 06:32 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Are you saying that an unversioned Provides: A will satisfy Requires: A >= > > 99? > > Yes. It'll also satisfy Requires: A < 99 at the same time :-) An unversioned provide is like providing all possible versions; it's like a wildcard version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 01:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > Are you saying that an unversioned Provides: A will satisfy Requires: A >= 99? Yes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 18:11 EST --- I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying that an unversioned Provides: A will satisfy Requires: A >= 99? That is rather surprising to me, and would seem to be yet another bug. I wonder just how many rpm bugs we're expected to work around? At some point it would seem like a better bet to just get them fixed. Chris, if you need help in filtering these, just let me know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 17:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > RPM is just finding both versioned and unversioned dependencies from different > files. (Loop::Tk comes from both Loop/Tk.pm and Loop/TkActiveState.pm.) I > don't think it's worth trying to filter these. The problem is that the unversioned ones trump the versioned ones and make it impossible to have any meaningful versioned dependencies to those in other packages as the unversioned provisions satisfy all versioned dependencies. I don't see why the unversioned ones should not be filtered. There are several cases where this is already being done in the tree. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 17:00 EST --- License tag tweaked as recommended. Imported and built for FC-[45], devel! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 16:26 EST --- "GPL or Artistic" is more standard for License:. Note that BR: perl is not required, and ExtUtils::MakeMaker, IO::Poll and Term::Cap are all part of the base perl package so they aren't required either. The %description is a bit wordy at 32 lines, but the digikamimageplugins package has 49 lines of description so I guess it isn't much of a problem. You might want to clean up the unused stuff in the %files section. Everything builds in mock (x86_64, development); rpmlint says the following: E: perl-POE useless-explicit-provides perl(POE::Kernel) E: perl-POE useless-explicit-provides perl(POE::Loop::Tk) I think rpmlint is a bit off here; there are no explicit Provides: in the spec; RPM is just finding both versioned and unversioned dependencies from different files. (Loop::Tk comes from both Loop/Tk.pm and Loop/TkActiveState.pm.) I don't think it's worth trying to filter these. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * source files match upstream: 67eacd47c8d7c05a5f5a119af220de30 POE-0.3501.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (x86_64, development). * rpmlint has only ignorable complaints. O final provides and requires are sane (duplicated dependencies come from RPM): perl(POE) = 0.3501 perl(POE::API::Ctl) = 1903 perl(POE::API::ResLoader) = 1903 perl(POE::Component) = 1903 perl(POE::Component::Client::TCP) = 1957 perl(POE::Component::Server::TCP) = 1956 perl(POE::Driver) = 1903 perl(POE::Driver::SysRW) = 1903 perl(POE::Filter) = 1955 perl(POE::Filter::Block) = 1920 perl(POE::Filter::Grep) = 1953 perl(POE::Filter::HTTPD) = 1958 perl(POE::Filter::Line) = 1920 perl(POE::Filter::Map) = 1953 perl(POE::Filter::RecordBlock) = 1920 perl(POE::Filter::Reference) = 1947 perl(POE::Filter::Stackable) = 1963 perl(POE::Filter::Stream) = 1920 perl(POE::Kernel) perl(POE::Kernel) = 1938 perl(POE::Loop) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::Event) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::Gtk) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::IO_Poll) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::PerlSignals) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::Select) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::Tk) perl(POE::Loop::Tk) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::TkActiveState) = 1914 perl(POE::Loop::TkCommon) = 1924 perl(POE::NFA) = 1946 perl(POE::Pipe) = 1903 perl(POE::Pipe::OneWay) = 1903 perl(POE::Pipe::TwoWay) = 1903 perl(POE::Queue) = 1903 perl(POE::Queue::Array) = 1903 perl(POE::Resource) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::Aliases) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::Controls) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::Events) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::Extrefs) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::FileHandles) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::SIDs) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::Sessions) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::Signals) = 1954 perl(POE::Resources::Statistics) = 1911 perl(POE::Session) = 1947 perl(POE::Wheel) = 1903 perl(POE::Wheel::Curses) = 1903 perl(POE::Wheel::FollowTail) = 1903 perl(POE::Wheel::ListenAccept) = 1903 perl(POE::Wheel::ReadLine) = 1947 perl(POE::Wheel::ReadLine::Keymap) perl(POE::Wheel::ReadWrite) = 1947 perl(POE::Wheel::Run) = 1916 perl(POE::Wheel::SocketFactory) = 1903 perl-POE = 0.3501-0.fc6 - perl >= 0:5.00503 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Curses) perl(Errno) perl(File::Spec) perl(HTTP::Date) perl(HTTP::Request) perl(HTTP::Response) perl(HTTP::Status) perl(IO::Handle) perl(IO::Poll) perl(IO::Socket) perl(POE) perl(POE::API::ResLoader) perl(POE::Driver::SysRW) perl(POE::Filter) perl(POE::Filter::Line) perl(POE::Kernel) perl(POE::Loop::PerlSignals) perl(POE::Loop::TkCommon) perl(POE::Pipe) perl(POE::Resource::Controls) perl(POE::Resources) perl(POE::Session) perl(POE::Wheel::ReadWrite) perl(POE::Wheel::SocketFactory) perl(POSIX) perl(Socket) perl(Symbol) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(Term::Cap) perl(Term::ReadKey) perl(Tk) perl(Tk) >= 800.021 perl(URI) perl(bytes) perl(strict) perl(vars) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the di
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 Bug 195303 depends on bug 194559, which changed state. Bug 194559 Summary: Review Request: perl-Event https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194559 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 14:22 EST --- *** Bug 195301 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||194559 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
