Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info ReportedBy: cweyl@alumni.drew.edu QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE.spec SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-0.3501-0.fc5.src.rpm
Description:
POE is a framework for cooperative, event driven multitasking in Perl. Other languages have similar frameworks. Python has Twisted. TCL has "the event loop".
POE originally was developed as the core of a persistent object server and runtime environment. It has evolved into a general purpose multitasking and networking framework, encompassing and providing a consistent interface to other event loops such as Event and the Tk and Gtk toolkits.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
cweyl@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |194559
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-06-14 14:22 EST ------- *** Bug 195301 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info |tibbs@math.uh.edu OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
Bug 195303 depends on bug 194559, which changed state.
Bug 194559 Summary: Review Request: perl-Event https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194559
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-06-14 16:26 EST ------- "GPL or Artistic" is more standard for License:.
Note that BR: perl is not required, and ExtUtils::MakeMaker, IO::Poll and Term::Cap are all part of the base perl package so they aren't required either.
The %description is a bit wordy at 32 lines, but the digikamimageplugins package has 49 lines of description so I guess it isn't much of a problem.
You might want to clean up the unused stuff in the %files section.
Everything builds in mock (x86_64, development); rpmlint says the following:
E: perl-POE useless-explicit-provides perl(POE::Kernel) E: perl-POE useless-explicit-provides perl(POE::Loop::Tk)
I think rpmlint is a bit off here; there are no explicit Provides: in the spec; RPM is just finding both versioned and unversioned dependencies from different files. (Loop::Tk comes from both Loop/Tk.pm and Loop/TkActiveState.pm.) I don't think it's worth trying to filter these.
Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * source files match upstream: 67eacd47c8d7c05a5f5a119af220de30 POE-0.3501.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (x86_64, development). * rpmlint has only ignorable complaints. O final provides and requires are sane (duplicated dependencies come from RPM): perl(POE) = 0.3501 perl(POE::API::Ctl) = 1903 perl(POE::API::ResLoader) = 1903 perl(POE::Component) = 1903 perl(POE::Component::Client::TCP) = 1957 perl(POE::Component::Server::TCP) = 1956 perl(POE::Driver) = 1903 perl(POE::Driver::SysRW) = 1903 perl(POE::Filter) = 1955 perl(POE::Filter::Block) = 1920 perl(POE::Filter::Grep) = 1953 perl(POE::Filter::HTTPD) = 1958 perl(POE::Filter::Line) = 1920 perl(POE::Filter::Map) = 1953 perl(POE::Filter::RecordBlock) = 1920 perl(POE::Filter::Reference) = 1947 perl(POE::Filter::Stackable) = 1963 perl(POE::Filter::Stream) = 1920 perl(POE::Kernel) perl(POE::Kernel) = 1938 perl(POE::Loop) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::Event) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::Gtk) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::IO_Poll) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::PerlSignals) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::Select) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::Tk) perl(POE::Loop::Tk) = 1903 perl(POE::Loop::TkActiveState) = 1914 perl(POE::Loop::TkCommon) = 1924 perl(POE::NFA) = 1946 perl(POE::Pipe) = 1903 perl(POE::Pipe::OneWay) = 1903 perl(POE::Pipe::TwoWay) = 1903 perl(POE::Queue) = 1903 perl(POE::Queue::Array) = 1903 perl(POE::Resource) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::Aliases) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::Controls) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::Events) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::Extrefs) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::FileHandles) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::SIDs) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::Sessions) = 1903 perl(POE::Resources::Signals) = 1954 perl(POE::Resources::Statistics) = 1911 perl(POE::Session) = 1947 perl(POE::Wheel) = 1903 perl(POE::Wheel::Curses) = 1903 perl(POE::Wheel::FollowTail) = 1903 perl(POE::Wheel::ListenAccept) = 1903 perl(POE::Wheel::ReadLine) = 1947 perl(POE::Wheel::ReadLine::Keymap) perl(POE::Wheel::ReadWrite) = 1947 perl(POE::Wheel::Run) = 1916 perl(POE::Wheel::SocketFactory) = 1903 perl-POE = 0.3501-0.fc6 - perl >= 0:5.00503 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Curses) perl(Errno) perl(File::Spec) perl(HTTP::Date) perl(HTTP::Request) perl(HTTP::Response) perl(HTTP::Status) perl(IO::Handle) perl(IO::Poll) perl(IO::Socket) perl(POE) perl(POE::API::ResLoader) perl(POE::Driver::SysRW) perl(POE::Filter) perl(POE::Filter::Line) perl(POE::Kernel) perl(POE::Loop::PerlSignals) perl(POE::Loop::TkCommon) perl(POE::Pipe) perl(POE::Resource::Controls) perl(POE::Resources) perl(POE::Session) perl(POE::Wheel::ReadWrite) perl(POE::Wheel::SocketFactory) perl(POSIX) perl(Socket) perl(Symbol) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(Term::Cap) perl(Term::ReadKey) perl(Tk) perl(Tk) >= 800.021 perl(URI) perl(bytes) perl(strict) perl(vars) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is present and all tests pass (noisily, but without failures) All tests successful, 68 tests skipped. Files=141, Tests=3271, 124 wallclock secs (11.83 cusr + 3.19 csys = 15.02 CPU) * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app.
APPROVED; don't forget to bump Release: to 1 when you check in.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
cweyl@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-06-15 17:00 EST ------- License tag tweaked as recommended.
Imported and built for FC-[45], devel!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@iki.fi 2006-06-15 17:12 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2)
RPM is just finding both versioned and unversioned dependencies from different files. (Loop::Tk comes from both Loop/Tk.pm and Loop/TkActiveState.pm.) I don't think it's worth trying to filter these.
The problem is that the unversioned ones trump the versioned ones and make it impossible to have any meaningful versioned dependencies to those in other packages as the unversioned provisions satisfy all versioned dependencies. I don't see why the unversioned ones should not be filtered. There are several cases where this is already being done in the tree.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-06-15 18:11 EST ------- I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying that an unversioned Provides: A will satisfy Requires: A >= 99? That is rather surprising to me, and would seem to be yet another bug.
I wonder just how many rpm bugs we're expected to work around? At some point it would seem like a better bet to just get them fixed.
Chris, if you need help in filtering these, just let me know.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@iki.fi 2006-06-16 01:57 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5)
Are you saying that an unversioned Provides: A will satisfy Requires: A >= 99?
Yes.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
------- Additional Comments From paul@city-fan.org 2006-06-16 06:32 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Are you saying that an unversioned Provides: A will satisfy Requires: A >= 99?
Yes.
It'll also satisfy Requires: A < 99 at the same time :-)
An unversioned provide is like providing all possible versions; it's like a wildcard version.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-06-16 11:49 EST ------- Ok, sounds like they should be filtered.
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Are you saying that an unversioned Provides: A will satisfy Requires: A >= 99?
Yes.
It'll also satisfy Requires: A < 99 at the same time :-)
An unversioned provide is like providing all possible versions; it's like a wildcard version.
How is this not a bug in rpm itself?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-06-16 12:05 EST ------- Wait -- ok, something weird is happening. I see in the latest repoclosure reports that perl-POE is failing with an unsatisfied requires:
---- Summary of broken packages in fedora-extras-5-i386: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- perl-POE-0.3501-2.fc5.noarch requires perl(POE::Resource::Controls) ----
Yet perl-POE clearly provides perl(POE::Resources::Controls) = 1903.
What's going on here?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@iki.fi 2006-06-17 06:52 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8)
How is this not a bug in rpm itself?
If you think it's a rpm bug, report it.
(In reply to comment #9)
perl-POE-0.3501-2.fc5.noarch requires perl(POE::Resource::Controls) Yet perl-POE clearly provides perl(POE::Resources::Controls) = 1903.
Note "Resource" vs "Resources".
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-POE Alias: perl-POE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303
cweyl@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |perl-POE
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=195303
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |steve.traylen@cern.ch Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2009-11-01 14:00:08 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-POE New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Owners: stevetraylen
Response from owner of perl-POE in Fedora:
I actually don't use POE that much anymore.... if you want to take them over for both Fedora and EPEL, they'd probably benefit from it :)
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=195303
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-11-02 23:43:47 EDT --- cvs done.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org