[Bug 621559] New: Review Request: perl-Data-Properties - Perl equivalent of java.util.Properties
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-Properties - Perl equivalent of java.util.Properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621559
Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-Properties - Perl equivalent of java.util.Properties Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fedora@zaniyah.org QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://zaniyah.fedorapeople.org/perl/perl-Data-Properties.spec SRPM URL: http://zaniyah.fedorapeople.org/perl/perl-Data-Properties-0.02-2.src.rpm Description: Perl Data::Properties from CPAN. This class is a Perl version of Java's java.util.Properties and aims to be format-compatible with that class.
Successful scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2381348
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=621559
--- Comment #1 from Jessica Jones fedora@zaniyah.org 2010-08-05 09:33:55 EDT --- *** Bug 621558 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621559
--- Comment #2 from Jessica Jones fedora@zaniyah.org 2010-08-10 09:15:41 EDT --- http://search.cpan.org/dist/Data-Properties/ - "License: UNKNOWN" is not very helpful. I've sent an email to the upstream author at the address mentioned in the source and asked for clarification.
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=621559
--- Comment #3 from Jessica Jones fedora@zaniyah.org 2010-08-12 05:52:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Data-Properties/ - "License: UNKNOWN" is not very helpful. I've sent an email to the upstream author at the address mentioned in the source and asked for clarification.
This is what the upstream maintainer/author had to say:
"On 11/08/10 00:00,, Brian Moseley wrote:
huh, I'm surprised that you find it that useful, but okay. it doesn't look like I included a license in the distribution, but if I were to do so today, it would be under the most recent Apache license."
I have asked if he would mind updating the CPAN entry, as that would help clear up future confusion.
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=621559
Mark Chappell tremble@tremble.org.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tremble@tremble.org.uk AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tremble@tremble.org.uk Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Mark Chappell tremble@tremble.org.uk 2010-09-11 08:51:12 EDT --- - = N/A / = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific items [/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2461485 [!] Rpmlint output: bash-4.1$ rpmlint perl-Data-Properties*.rpm perl-Data-Properties.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, utile, until perl-Data-Properties.noarch: W: invalid-license CHECK perl-Data-Properties.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, utile, until perl-Data-Properties.src: W: invalid-license CHECK perl-Data-Properties.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 11) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
[/] Package is not relocatable. [/] Buildroot is correct ( Not needed if >= EL6 and >= F13 ) Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [!] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: [!] 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. [-] With any Subpackage installed the license must also be installed (this may belong to another subpackage) [/] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. (md5sum c60600639265a20c9678a720527e3941) [/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [/] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [/] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [] Permissions on files are set properly. [/] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. ( Not needed if >= EL6 and >= F13 ) [/] Package consistently uses macros. [/] Package contains code, or permissible content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS === [/] Latest version is packaged. [/] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [/] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested through koji [/] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: fedora-rawhide [-] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [/] %check is present and the tests pass All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=14, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.00 sys + 0.01 cusr 0.00 csys = 0.03 CPU) Result: PASS
=== Perl Specific === http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl [/] Versioned MODULE_COMPAT_ Requires [/] Non-Versioned CPAN URL tag
=== COMMENTS === * Licensing : Since upstream's taken so long to reply please adjust the License tag and include a copy of the email from upstream https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarifi... : "A copy of the email, containing full headers, must be included as a source file (marked as %doc) in the package."
* BuildRoot only required if you're aiming for EL-5
* RPM Lint : mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs the spec file should either use spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. spelling-error : ignore invalid-licence : See above comments about licensing.
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=621559
--- Comment #5 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-04-21 08:13:57 EDT --- If you will be adding this package, please also create branch in F-15. Package gold has broken dependencies because of missing this one.
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=621559
--- Comment #6 from Jessica Jones fedora@zaniyah.org 2011-08-18 09:56:35 EDT --- Upstream does not want to update the module in CPAN as it is no longer maintained. I am only really adding it as it is a dependency of something else.
Attempting to rebuild has highlighted a dependency on perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker, which is not part of Fedora at present.
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=621559
--- Comment #7 from Jessica Jones fedora@zaniyah.org 2011-08-18 10:03:48 EDT --- As this was being added as a required dependency of Gold Allocation Manager, I've asked the Gold maintainer if a different Perl module might be used instead, but understandably he does not wish to change.
The maintainer of Data::Properties does not wish to maintain his package and has refused to update it as 'a superior version exists'.
I attempted to build perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker, but at present it does not compile on Fedora 16.
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=621559
Iain Arnell iarnell@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |iarnell@gmail.com
--- Comment #8 from Iain Arnell iarnell@gmail.com 2011-08-30 01:45:37 EDT --- Jessica,
perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker has been in fedora forever. It's a sub-package of perl rpm itself. Looking at your spec file, the problem is simply that you need
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
without the quotes, not
BuildRequires: perl('ExtUtils::MakeMaker')
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=621559
--- Comment #9 from Jessica Jones fedora@zaniyah.org 2011-08-31 04:40:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8)
Jessica,
perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker has been in fedora forever. It's a sub-package of perl rpm itself. Looking at your spec file, the problem is simply that you need
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
without the quotes, not
BuildRequires: perl('ExtUtils::MakeMaker')
Thanks, I hadn't realised it was something so simple.
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=621559
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com
--- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2011-10-02 04:33:23 EDT --- Jessica, if you can forward me a copy of the email from Brian so that I have it in the extremely unlikely event of dispute over the license, I will permit this package to move forward without including a copy.
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=621559
--- Comment #11 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2011-10-04 17:23:39 EDT --- I've now got a copy of the email. This package can move forward for a proper review.
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=621559
Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.seyman@club-internet.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED CC| |emmanuel.seyman@club-intern | |et.fr Resolution| |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2011-10-19 15:46:26
--- Comment #12 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.seyman@club-internet.fr 2011-10-19 15:46:26 EDT --- I've talked about this package via email with Jessica and she's doesn't have a lot of time to push this review forward. We've agreed that I should submit this package and that this review should be closed as a duplicate of that one.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 747437 ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla