[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|rc040...@freenet.de |psab...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com 2011-05-25 03:57:38 EDT --- It seems Ralf doesn't plan to finish this one. Taking it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629
--- Comment #11 from Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com 2011-05-25 04:36:34 EDT
---
Package: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics
Version: 0.006
Release: 1.fc16
Sources: Perl-Critic-Tics-0.006.tar.gz
Patches:
--
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-15-x86_64.
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-15-i386.
Package successfully built in koji, dist-rawhide.
MUST items:
[ OK ] Package does NOT include pre-built binaries or libraries
[ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American english
[ OK ] Package successfully builds on at least one supported primary
architecture
[ -- ] All ExcludeArch tags valid, referencing proper bug reports
[ OK ] Package obeys FHS (with _libexecdir and /srv exceptions)
[ NOTE ] No errors reported by rpmlint
[ OK ] Changelog present and properly formatted
[ OK ] Package does NOT include Packager, Vendor, Copyright or PreReq tags
[ OK ] Source tags are working URLs and sources match upstream or justified
otherwise
[ FAIL ] Requires correct or justified otherwise
[ FAIL ] BuildRequires correct or justified otherwise
[ OK ] All file names are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[ OK ] All plain text failes are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[ -- ] Large documentation files are located in doc subpackage
[ OK ] All documentation prefixed with %doc
[ OK ] Documentation is NOT executable
[ OK ] No files in %doc are needed at run-time
[ -- ] Compiler flags honor Fedora defaults or are justified
[ -- ] Package generates useful debuginfo packages
[ -- ] Header files are placed in devel subpackage
[ -- ] Unversioned shared libraries are placed in devel subpackage
[ -- ] Pkgconfig files are placed in devel subpackage
[ -- ] Full-versioned Requires of the base package in subpackages
[ -- ] Package calls ldconfig in post and postun sections for all
subpackages, if applicable
[ -- ] Static libraries are provided by static subpackage
[ OK ] Package contains no static executables unless approved by FESCo
[ OK ] Package does NOT bundle any system libraries
[ -- ] RPath not used for anything besides internal libraries
[ -- ] All config files are marked noreplace or justified otherwise
[ OK ] No config files are located under /usr
[ -- ] Package contains a SystemV-compatible initscript
[ -- ] A GUI application installs a proper desktop file
[ -- ] All desktop files are installed by desktop-file-install or justified
otherwise
[ OK ] Package consistently uses macros
[ -- ] makeinstall macro is used only if make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
does NOT work
[ -- ] Macros in Summary and description are expandable at build-time
[ -- ] globals used in place of defines
[ -- ] Locales handled correctly -- package requires gettext and uses
find_lang, if applicable
[ -- ] Scriptlets are sane
[ OK ] Package is not relocatable unless justified
[ OK ] Package contains only acceptable code or content
[ OK ] Package owns all the files and directories it creates, installs and/or
uses unless those are already owned by another package
[ OK ] files sections do NOT contain duplicate files except for licenses
[ OK ] Package does NOT cause any conflicts
[ OK ] Package does NOT contain kernel modules
[ OK ] Package does NOT bundle fonts or other general purpose data
[ FAIL ] Final Requires and Provides are sane
SHOULD items:
[ OK ] The Summary does NOT end with a period
[ OK ] Package does NOT include BuildRoot tag, clean section or buildroot
removal in install section
[ OK ] Package should preserve files timestamps
[ OK ] Package does NOT explicitly BuildRequire bash, bzip2, coreutils, cpio,
diffutils, fedora-release, findutils, gawk, gcc, gcc-c++, grep, gzip, info,
make, patch, redhat-rpm-config, rpm-build, sed, shadow-utils, tar, unzip,
util-linux-ng, which or xz
[ OK ] Description does NOT consist of lines longer than 80 characters
[ OK ] Package uses parallel make
[ -- ] In case of a web application, package installs date into /usr/share
instead of /var/www
[ -- ] All patches have a comment or an upstream bug link
[ -- ] Package installs manpages for all executables
[ OK ] Package contains check section and all tests pass
[ ?? ] Package works as expected
NOTES:
--
Perl::Critic::Tics::Violation::VirtualPos @ISA Perl::Critic::Violation.
Although this is provided by Perl::Critic, Tics should explicitly
(Build)Require it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 --- Comment #12 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-05-25 08:25:26 EDT --- Updated package is on the same URLs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629
Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com 2011-05-25 09:01:40 EDT
---
--- a/perl-Perl-Critic-Tics.spec
+++ b/perl-Perl-Critic-Tics.spec
@@ -11,11 +11,13 @@ BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires: perl(Perl::Critic) = 1.07
BuildRequires: perl(Perl::Critic::TestUtils)
BuildRequires: perl(Perl::Critic::Utils)
+BuildRequires: perl(Perl::Critic::Violation)
# Tests only:
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
# Plug-in into perlcritics. Require it.
Requires: perl(Perl::Critic) = 1.07
+Requires: perl(Perl::Critic::Violation)
%description
The Perl-Critic-Tics distribution includes extra policies for Perl::Critic
--
Approving.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 --- Comment #14 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-05-25 11:38:49 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics Short Description: Policies for things that make me wince Owners: ppisar mmaslano psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Perl-Critic-Tics-0.006 ||-1.fc16 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-05-25 12:14:30 --- Comment #16 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-05-25 12:14:30 EDT --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-05-25 11:58:33 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 --- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-04-28 10:24:17 EDT --- Package installing into vendor can be found on following locators: Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl-Critic-Tics/perl-Perl-Critic-Tics.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl-Critic-Tics/perl-Perl-Critic-Tics-0.006-1.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||psab...@redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com 2011-04-21 03:46:10 EDT --- Just a note: This is the last not finished review perl-Task-Perl-Critic depends on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||690569 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 --- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2011-02-04 10:53:11 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #4) This is Fedora specific issue, not upstr(In reply to comment #3) Upstream perl reference please. This is Fedora effort, not upstream one. No. vendor_dir is an upstream perl invention = it must have a meaning. If what you say applies, this would be a fundamential change in fedora's perl-packaging policy, because so far, it had been convention to consider Fedora == vendor. Convention, not a policy. Irrelevant - You are nit-picking on words. What matters here, is considency of the Fedora distribution and simplicity of packaging. The location is not standardized in Perl Packaging Guidelines. This has been decided by `perl' package owner (mmaslano) about half year ago. Yes, you single-sidedly decided something very arguable and have caused Fedora's perl packaging to be inconsistent. I wrote a proposal, not a policy. You did not write a proposal. You documented what you decided and implemented. No-one commented it yet, I'd like to take this issue back to our mailing list to discuss. Provided what has happened, I an not sure such discussion makes much sense. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-01-31 04:35:42 EST --- Because vendor directory is reserved for third-party packages. We are trying to allow administrators to overlay Perl modules with their own repositories. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rc040...@freenet.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2011-01-31 05:24:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Because vendor directory is reserved for third-party packages. We are trying to allow administrators to overlay Perl modules with their own repositories. Upstream perl reference please. If what you say applies, this would be a fundamential change in fedora's perl-packaging policy, because so far, it had been convention to consider Fedora == vendor. Consider all of your packages which are not installing to vendor_dir blocked. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-01-31 05:44:55 EST --- This is Fedora specific issue, not upstr(In reply to comment #3) Upstream perl reference please. This is Fedora effort, not upstream one. If what you say applies, this would be a fundamential change in fedora's perl-packaging policy, because so far, it had been convention to consider Fedora == vendor. Convention, not a policy. The location is not standardized in Perl Packaging Guidelines. This has been decided by `perl' package owner (mmaslano) about half year ago. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 --- Comment #5 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-01-31 06:37:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) Because vendor directory is reserved for third-party packages. We are trying to allow administrators to overlay Perl modules with their own repositories. Upstream perl reference please. If what you say applies, this would be a fundamential change in fedora's perl-packaging policy, because so far, it had been convention to consider Fedora == vendor. Consider all of your packages which are not installing to vendor_dir blocked. It was convention, but in F-13 were paths cut and vendor has the same path as core perl. You didn't disagree with this change, which was similarly fundamental. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629 --- Comment #6 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-01-31 06:38:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) This is Fedora specific issue, not upstr(In reply to comment #3) Upstream perl reference please. This is Fedora effort, not upstream one. If what you say applies, this would be a fundamential change in fedora's perl-packaging policy, because so far, it had been convention to consider Fedora == vendor. Convention, not a policy. The location is not standardized in Perl Packaging Guidelines. This has been decided by `perl' package owner (mmaslano) about half year ago. I wrote a proposal, not a policy. No-one commented it yet, I'd like to take this issue back to our mailing list to discuss. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672629] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics - Policies for things that make me wince
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=672629
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2011-01-28 10:19:24
EST ---
This part of your spec longs for an explanation:
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=perl
Why not vendor_dir?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
