[Bug 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Module-Implementation- ||0.06-1.fc18 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-03-01 03:45:03 -- 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 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-29 20:03:59 EST --- perl-Module-Implementation-0.06-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable 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 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-29 20:02:07 EST --- perl-Module-Implementation-0.06-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable 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 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-22 21:24:23 EST --- perl-Module-Implementation-0.06-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable 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 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-12 15:27:28 EST --- perl-Module-Implementation-0.05-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Module-Implementation-0.05-1.el5 -- 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 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-08 11:52:01 EST --- perl-Module-Implementation-0.03-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Module-Implementation-0.03-3.el6 -- 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 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-08 11:51:52 EST --- perl-Module-Implementation-0.03-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Module-Implementation-0.03-3.fc16 -- 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 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-08 10:40:27 EST --- 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 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Paul Howarth 2012-02-08 10:34:03 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Module-Implementation Short Description: Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module Owners: pghmcfc Branches: F-16 F-17 EL-5 EL-6 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 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata 2012-02-08 10:16:58 EST --- Okay, looks good now :) -- 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 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258 --- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth 2012-02-08 10:07:50 EST --- > I suppose this is going to be in EPEL5, like many of your other packages. It looks like EL-5 is going to be around for a long while yet, and I prefer to keep things compatible whilst that's the case. > FIX: The correct license for this package is Artistic 2.0 Fixed in -3; that was careless of me. > TODO: perl(strict) and perl(warnings) don't live on CPAN, they could be safely > removed from BRs I've left them in in case they become dual-lived in future. > TODO: However, perl(lib) does and should be added to your 'Test suite' BRs. Added in -3. > TODO: rpmbuild doesn't detect the perl(Carp) dependency here, you should > Require it manually Added in -3. Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-Module-Implementation/branches/fedora/perl-Module-Implementation.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Module-Implementation/perl-Module-Implementation-0.03-3.fc17.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 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata 2012-02-08 09:04:16 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Invalid buildroot found:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -nu)
I suppose this is going to be in EPEL5, like many of your other packages.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
EPEL5 expected.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
EPEL5 expected.
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
EPEL5 expected.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[!]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/788258/Module-Implementation-0.03.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 0698d0874f518260265be2d49fe869b1
MD5SUM upstream package : 0698d0874f518260265be2d49fe869b1
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
FIX: The correct license for this package is Artistic 2.0
TODO: perl(strict) and perl(warnings) don't live on CPAN, they could be safely
removed from BRs
TODO: However, perl(lib) does and should be added to your 'Test suite' BRs.
TODO: rpmbuild doesn't detect the perl(Carp) depende
[Bug 788258] Review Request: perl-Module-Implementation - Loads one of several alternate underlying implementations for a module
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=788258 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- 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
