[Bug 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 Bill Pemberton wf...@worldbroken.com 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Please use epel7, not el7 in the future. Thanks! -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #17 from Bill Pemberton wf...@worldbroken.com --- Package Change Request === Package Name: perl-Rose-Object Short Description: Simple object base class Owners: wfp Branches: el7 -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-27 21:16:45 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #12 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- It seems that you forget to build perl-Rose-Object for rawhide (Fedora 18). I can't continue the rest of your reviews (perl-Rose-DateTime, ...) without it. -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #13 from Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu --- Sorry about that, it should be there now. -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc17 -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.el6 -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc16 -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- Changes are ok. Package is APPROVED. For finding the requirement, I am going though the content of the source tarball. I am looking for modules which are loaded by 'use' or 'require' for tests and lib|scripts|... I add only the modules which could be packed separately (e.g. lib, Test::More). The modules which are needed only for tests, I add only to BR. If some module can be loaded due to any condition I also don't add it. -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Rose-Object Short Description: Simple object base class Owners: wfp Branches: f16 f17 el6 InitialCC: perl-sig -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742
Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jples...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[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 %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: 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.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate 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.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[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 systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[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.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[Bug 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #4 from Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu --- Rose::Object::MakeMethods was originally filtered from requires because it would create a circular depandancy. This was quite a few rpm versions ago (I've used essentially these same specs locally for years). It appears not to cause a problem now, so I've removed it. I'd like leave Class:XSAccessor out of the requires. It's optional for Rose::Object and would prevent Rose::Object from being in epel6 since Class:XSAccessor is not in epel6. Also, could you tell me how you are generating the missing requires? I'd like to know so I can catch these ahead of time. Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #2 from Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu --- Updated: Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-4.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #1 from Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu --- Oops, cut and pasted URLs from another request, here are the correct ones. Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-3.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||839744 -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||839751 -- 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 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||839754 -- 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
