[Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl
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=226276 Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ska...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #39 from Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com 2009-08-28 17:56:49 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl New Branches: F-12 -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
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=226276 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #40 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-08-28 23:26:17 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
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=226276 Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Customer Facing|NO |--- Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #38 from Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-02 21:35:21 EDT --- This one has been done for some time now. Setting the review flag to + and closing this bug out. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-27 08:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #36) So since libperl.so is in perl-libs (on moonshine), will perl-libs be a dependency on perl or will it be strictly independent of perl? perl requires perl-libs. Or, strictly speaking, perl requires libperl.so which is provided by perl-libs. If your system contains perl.rpm but nor perl-libs.rpm, your dependencies are broken. It might be beacuse of a bug in yum, see bug #240540. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-15 14:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #31) IMO, this perl-libs package (the libperl.so split out) is completely useless and doesn't solve anything, because the main perl package is i386 arch'ed and filled with i386 deps. I strongly recommend to revert this change. Since the debate above is still unclear: Some of my packages can't be rpmbuilt properly till the end. At %files they fails with /usr/bin/perl: error while loading shared libraries: libperl.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory getOutputFrom(): Broken pipe So since libperl.so is in perl-libs (on moonshine), will perl-libs be a dependency on perl or will it be strictly independent of perl ? -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-26 05:00 EST ---
IMO, this perl-libs package (the libperl.so split out) is completely useless and
doesn't solve anything, because the main perl package is i386 arch'ed and filled
with i386 deps.
I strongly recommend to revert this change.
If you want real progress, split out %{_bindir}/* and move everything else into
perl-libs.
--
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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-26 11:04 EST --- Ralf, The release team disagrees, I'm afraid, and thinks this is the way to go for F7. They do, however, 'promise', to fix multilib for F8, and then we can de-hack perl: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-April/msg00462.html -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-26 11:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #32) Ralf, The release team disagrees, I'm afraid, Well, ... the release team doesn't want to know what I think about this and them. and thinks this is the way to go for F7. perl still contains TONS of i386 binaries, TONS of i386-paths. = You aren't fixing anything by splitting out libperl ... but probably to work around one of the many bugs inside of rpm and yum. While we're at it: FC6 yum still suffers from the not being able to resolve perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) bug when an old monolytic perl is in one of the repos. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-26 12:13 EST --- Yes, I agree this is certainly a workaround, not a 'fix' in any way. No argument there, at all. But it's the path the release team has picked so far. Honestly, I don't understand multilib deeply enough by any means to debate meaningfully. If you can change the release team's mind, I'll be more than happy to revert the change. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-26 12:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #34) Honestly, I don't understand multilib I implemented and am maintaining many of them in GCC ;) deeply enough by any means to debate meaningfully. I don't think they fixed multilibs (The arch dependent perl paths do not intersect), but work around a the bug in rpm which causes it to insert bogus Provides/Requires: libperl.so() into the rpm. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-25 11:17 EST --- *** Bug 237564 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-24 15:21 EST ---
The latest (5.8.8-16.3) fixes the issues described in comment #25 and comment
#26:
Now the perl-CPAN package Provides: cpan-version, and the %{libdir} issues
should be fixed.
--
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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-24 17:29 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=153388)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=153388action=view)
x86_64 build fix for 16.3
The %{_libdir} issues actually became worse - the %exclude's were correct in
16.2 and the inclusions incorrect, but 16.3 made the %excludes incorrect too.
The attached patch fixes the build for me on FC6 x86_64, resulting packages
untested.
Provides: cpan-%{version} looks odd, was it meant to be Provides: cpan =
%{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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-24 18:12 EST --- argh, yes, I managed to get both 'fixes' exactly wrong, somehow. Thanks. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 02:58 EST --- Robin: The rationale behind the Provides: cpan escapes me. Packages wanting to use perl(CPAN) should require perl(CPAN), packages wanting to use /usr/bin/cpan should directly depend on /usr/bin/cpan (which would be the only correct solution) or can Requires: perl-CPAN. If your intention is to provide a virtual cpan package, then it should be a versioned Provides. I would not add Provides: cpan. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 15:59 EST ---
x86_64 build of 16.2 fails, looks like a %{_prefix}/lib vs %{_libdir} mixup:
RPM build errors:
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Embed.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Command
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Install.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Installed.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Liblist
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Liblist.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MakeMaker
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MakeMaker.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MANIFEST.SKIP
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MM*.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MY.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Manifest.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Mkbootstrap.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Mksymlists.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/NOTES
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Packlist.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/PATCHING
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/testlib.pm
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/Harness*
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/More*
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/Builder*
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/Simple*
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/Tutorial*
--
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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-18 16:05 EST --- ok, added the Requires that Ville recommends in comment #22, and (I believe) fixed the epoch issue. The version is now 16.2. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-17 17:54 EST --- Looking at 5.8.8-16 in CVS, although not required in the strictest sense, I don't think it would be a bad idea to add a manual Requires: perl(Test::Harness) to perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker. That dependency is not automatically found by rpmbuild (see test_harness() in ExtUtils/Command/MM.pm), but is a feature that is indirectly used by a lot of module packages - with make test, ExtUtils::MakeMaker runs t/*.t tests using Test::Harness which is prominently documented in the ExtUtils::MakeMaker man page. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-18 00:48 EST --- MUSTFIX: The *-16 in CVS still suffers from the broken epoch 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 10:39 EST --- Just talked with Robin. Proposed to make this this transition smoother in the future is to add Provides: perl-devel to the older versions of the perl package when perl is updated in those distros. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:10 EST --- I agree with Ralf. A -devel split makes sense iff someone can come up with a sensible definition for what goes into -devel, but as-is it just look like a knee-jerk reaction to an rpmlint warning. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:13 EST --- As the person who wrote the new spec file, I can assure you that it was not a knee-jerk reaction to an rpmlint warning. The packaging guidelines are rather clear about when a package needs a -devel, and perl needed one. Now, in the same breath, I'm more than willing to cede that there are some bits missing in -devel. All of ExtUtils::MakeMaker needs to move over, for example (I'm not sure we can put it in a separate package, not tested whether perl can build without a local copy). -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:28 EST --- A knee-jerk reaction to a packaging guideline has the same effect :) CPAN depends on MakeMaker. Will CPAN be moved to -devel too? -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:36 EST --- AND... for the record, it was not a knee-jerk reaction to a packaging guideline either: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00025.html I proposed it and no one else on the Packaging Committee was on board with permitting perl to be an exception case. So, here we are. Are you done with knee-jerking? -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 13:40 EST --- (In reply to comment #20) https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00025.html I proposed it and no one else on the Packaging Committee was on board with permitting perl to be an exception case. I read the replies to the above message pretty much exactly the opposite - I don't see anyone being explicitly against it. rdieter and tibbs were explicitly on board, and myself, f13 and thimm more or less without an opinion formed at that point (FWIW, I still haven't, but the clock is ticking). https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00027.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00029.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00038.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00039.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00047.html There were also a few non-FPC member comments to the suggestion, slightly leaning towards being leaving things as is. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-02 13:32 EST --- Alright, let's discuss this change on fedora-perl-devel and make the call by Monday. See: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-perl-devel-list/2007-March/msg9.html and replies. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-02 01:19 EST --- The *-devel split-out seems to break building of all perl-modules. IMO, it's too late in F7's release cycle for such a massive change. I'd recommend you to reconsider your decision. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-02 01:45 EST --- If it's really only a mass rebuild which includes the perl-devel to _all_ perl modules, this should be handable like in the past. Announce to the maintainers to fix their packages until a specified date, otherwise one mass-fixing and rebuild will be done. IMHO this should be possible for the Core packages, too. But from what I read now, we're not sure what has to be moved to -devel, or did I miss something? -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-02 02:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) The *-devel split-out seems to break building of all perl-modules. This happened not only to you, but also to me.. IMO, it's too late in F7's release cycle for such a massive change. +1 -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-28 11:04 EST --- Created an attachment (id=148936) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148936action=view) diff between spot's spec file and the one that builds on 64bit -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-28 11:08 EST --- Oh, and today I'm going to look at the patches that couldn't be sent upstream and the one that wasn't done yet. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-28 18:42 EST --- Moving *only* the headers into a -devel subpackage seems half baked, it breaks a bunch of builds, yet the perl package itself still contains bags of stuff only useful for building Perl C extensions: c2ph, half of MakeMaker, ... I'm sure there's more. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #147314|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 16:43 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147701) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147701action=view) Reviewed perl spec file This spec file is the one I am doing the review against. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 16:58 EST --- Review: This review is against the attached spec file (id=147701). I rewrote the spec file, cleaning up lots of ancient cruft. Good: - rpmlint checks return: W: perl devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/DynaLoader/DynaLoader.a (should be safe to ignore, I'm pretty sure the base perl needs this) W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6/i386-linux-thread-multi W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6 W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7 W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5 W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8 Since this is perl, not a perl-module, these are all safe to ignore. W: perl-devel no-documentation W: perl-suidperl no-documentation Safe to ignore. E: perl-suidperl setuid-binary /usr/bin/sperl5.8.8 root 04711 E: perl-suidperl non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/sperl5.8.8 04711 E: perl-suidperl non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/sperl5.8.8 04711 Since this is suidperl, it will be setuid and have non-standard permissions. Safe to ignore. W: perl strange-permission filter-depends.sh 0775 Safe to ignore. W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(VMS::Filespec) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(VMS::Stdio) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.5) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.6) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.7) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:WITH_ITHREADS) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:WITH_THREADS) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:WITH_LARGEFILES) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:WITH_PERLIO) These provides don't merit versions, IMHO. Safe to ignore. W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(abbrev.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(assert.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(bigfloat.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(bigint.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(bigrat.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(bytes_heavy.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(cacheout.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(complete.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(ctime.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(dotsh.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(dumpvar.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(exceptions.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(fastcwd.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(find.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(finddepth.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(flush.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(ftp.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(getcwd.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(getopt.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(getopts.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(hostname.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(importenv.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(look.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(newgetopt.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(open2.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(open3.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(perl5db.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(pwd.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(shellwords.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(stat.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(syslog.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(tainted.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(termcap.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(timelocal.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(utf8_heavy.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(validate.pl) These are all file provides. They don't have real versions, per se. IMHO, safe to ignore. W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(Carp::Heavy) Same as above, no real versioning here. Safe to ignore W: perl
fedora-review requested: [Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl
Bug 226276: Merge Review: perl Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 13:02 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147312) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147312action=view) New perl spec This is a new spec for perl with lots and lots of cleanups. The review below is against this spec. -- 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #147312|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 13:32 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147314) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147314action=view) Fixed spec No, look at this spec. Made one minor fix. -- 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
