[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE CC||xav...@bachelot.org Last Closed|2014-01-17 15:47:49 |2023-10-18 09:02:41 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Getopt-ArgvFile-1.11-24.el7, perl-PAR-1.015-4.el7, perl-PAR-Packer-1.041-2.el7, perl-Tk-Canvas-GradientColor-1.06-10.el7, perl-Tk-ColoredButton-1.05-15.el7, perl-Tk-EntryCheck-0.04-15.el7, perl-Tk-Getopt-0.51-3.el7, perl-Tk-Pod-0.9943-6.el7, perl-perlindex-1.606-10.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Getopt-ArgvFile-1.11-24.el7, perl-PAR-1.015-4.el7, perl-PAR-Packer-1.041-2.el7, perl-Tk-Canvas-GradientColor-1.06-10.el7, perl-Tk-ColoredButton-1.05-15.el7, perl-Tk-EntryCheck-0.04-15.el7, perl-Tk-Getopt-0.51-3.el7, perl-Tk-Pod-0.9943-6.el7, perl-perlindex-1.606-10.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-fe2035adcd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Getopt-ArgvFile-1.11-24.el7 perl-PAR-1.015-4.el7 perl-PAR-Packer-1.041-2.el7 perl-Tk-Canvas-GradientColor-1.06-10.el7 perl-Tk-ColoredButton-1.05-15.el7 perl-Tk-EntryCheck-0.04-15.el7 perl-Tk-Getopt-0.51-3.el7 perl-Tk-Pod-0.9943-6.el7 perl-perlindex-1.606-10.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-fe2035adcd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Getopt-ArgvFile-1.11-24.el7 perl-PAR-1.015-4.el7 perl-PAR-Packer-1.041-2.el7 perl-Tk-Canvas-GradientColor-1.06-10.el7 perl-Tk-ColoredButton-1.05-15.el7 perl-Tk-EntryCheck-0.04-15.el7 perl-Tk-Getopt-0.51-3.el7 perl-Tk-Pod-0.9943-6.el7 perl-perlindex-1.606-10.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-fe2035adcd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-perlindex-1.606-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-01-17 10:47:49 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Petr Pisar --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-perlindex Short Description: Index and search the perl documentation Owners: ppisar jplesnik psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar --- NO_PACKLIST Makefile.PL argument is supported since ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.75_01 which is available since Fedora 21. I guess this could be better solution instead of removing the .packlist files in %install section. Thank your for the hint and the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng --- What the .. ?? XD Jakub you should declare that you are not a packager yet first :) Petr, is it proper to append this option now? NO_PACKLIST=1 --- PACKAGE APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jedelsky --- Ok, then it should be nice name. I forgot to mention, that I'm not a member of the packagers group yet so I can't be reviewer officially. I leave it blank for another reviewers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar --- The package delivers Text::English module which is actually the reason why I package it. If you are fine with the review, please don't forget to set the flag and assign this report to you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jedelsky --- Maybe a little hint - this package is not so perl module as a standalone utility so why not to call it just "perlindex"? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053665] Review Request: perl-perlindex - Index and search the perl documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053665
Jakub Jedelsky changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub.jedel...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jedelsky ---
Package seems good for me.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Text(perl-Text-ParseWords, perl-Text-
Unidecode) - perl specific issue.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc,
