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=192577
Summary: Review Request: perl-OpenFrame 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: steve@silug.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-OpenFrame/perl-OpenFrame.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-OpenFrame-3.05-1.src.rpm Description: OpenFrame is a framework for network services serving to multiple media channels - for instance, the web, WAP, and digital television. It is built around the Pipeline API, and provides extra abstraction to make delivery of a single application to multiple channels easier.
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
steve@silug.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |192568, 192575
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
Bug 192577 depends on bug 192568, which changed state.
Bug 192568 Summary: Review Request: perl-File-Type https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192568
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-05-26 00:21 EST ------- Only one of the files (lib/OpenFrame/Argument/Blob.pm) seems to have a statement of the license. I don't think that's enough to suggest the license for the entire package.
I wonder about the need for these:
Requires: perl(File::Type) >= 0.01 Requires: perl(HTTP::Request) >= 0.01 Requires: perl(IO::Null) >= 0.01
The versions are so low that they seem to have been put in as placeholders. RPM should figure out all of these on its own. (It doesn't find HTTP::Request but it does find other modules, all provided by perl-libwww-perl.)
Some issues from the test suite:
t/02http_request....[OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response::OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response::dispatch] no response available at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Pipeline/Dispatch.pm line 74 ok
t/98compile.........skipped all skipped: - do not have File::Find::Rule installed
I'm not sure if the first is a mock artifact or a problem with the test suite. The second is fixed up with the obvious BR:.
Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. ? license field matches the actual license. ? license is open source-compatible. * source files match upstream: 6469544c6c83a0aa33676421cb09d1a5 OpenFrame-3.05.tar.gz 6469544c6c83a0aa33676421cb09d1a5 OpenFrame-3.05.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. ? final provides and requires are sane: perl(OpenFrame) perl(OpenFrame::Argument::Blob) perl(OpenFrame::Constants) perl(OpenFrame::Cookie) perl(OpenFrame::Cookies) perl(OpenFrame::Object) perl(OpenFrame::Request) perl(OpenFrame::Response) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::ContentLoader) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Request) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response) perl-OpenFrame = 3.05-1.fc6 - perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(CGI) perl(CGI::Cookie) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Spec) perl(File::Temp) perl(File::Type) perl(File::Type) >= 0.01 perl(FileHandle) perl(HTTP::Headers) perl(HTTP::Request) >= 0.01 perl(HTTP::Response) perl(HTTP::Status) perl(IO::Null) perl(IO::Null) >= 0.01 perl(OpenFrame) perl(OpenFrame::Argument::Blob) perl(OpenFrame::Cookie) perl(OpenFrame::Cookies) perl(OpenFrame::Object) perl(OpenFrame::Request) perl(OpenFrame::Response) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response) perl(Pipeline) perl(Pipeline) >= 2.00 perl(Pipeline::Production) perl(Pipeline::Segment) perl(base) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings::register) * 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 (after adding File::Find::Rule): All tests successful. Files=6, Tests=54, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.39 cusr + 0.16 csys = 0.55 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.
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-05-27 16:28 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1)
Only one of the files (lib/OpenFrame/Argument/Blob.pm) seems to have a statement of the license. I don't think that's enough to suggest the license for the entire package.
I've emailed the author (the one listed in that file anyway) for clarification.
I wonder about the need for these:
Requires: perl(File::Type) >= 0.01 Requires: perl(HTTP::Request) >= 0.01 Requires: perl(IO::Null) >= 0.01
The versions are so low that they seem to have been put in as placeholders. RPM should figure out all of these on its own. (It doesn't find HTTP::Request but it does find other modules, all provided by perl-libwww-perl.)
Fixed in -2.
t/02http_request....[OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response::OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response::dispatch]
no response available at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Pipeline/Dispatch.pm line 74 ok
[...]
I'm not sure if the first is a mock artifact or a problem with the test suite.
It happens when I'm not running under mock either.
t/98compile.........skipped all skipped: - do not have File::Find::Rule installed
[...]
The second is fixed up with the obvious BR:.
Also fixed in -2.
http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-OpenFrame-3.05-2.src.rpm
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
Bug 192577 depends on bug 192575, which changed state.
Bug 192575 Summary: Review Request: perl-Pipeline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192575
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-06-01 15:54 EST ------- Any luck hearing back from the author? It kind of sucks to be blocked on this kind of thing.
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-06-03 13:54 EST ------- Nothing yet. I'll try to bug them some more today.
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-06-03 14:17 EST ------- I've opened a ticket.
http://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=19679
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-06-12 00:16 EST ------- I take it there's been no progress, which is too bad. The author still seems to be active and the Openframe author posted a blog just a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately I just can't find anything that would work as a blanket license for this package other than a statement that everything in the upstream SVN repository is released under an OSI-approved license.
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-06-12 15:06 EST ------- I saw the mention of the OSI-approved license thing on their web site, but that seems to be as specific as they get.
Maybe I'll get lucky and someone authoritative will be at YAPC in a couple of weeks.
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-06-14 10:43 EST ------- ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-06-12 00:16 EST ------- I take it there's been no progress, which is too bad. The author still seems to be active and the Openframe author posted a blog just a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately I just can't find anything that would work as a blanket license for this package other than a statement that everything in the upstream SVN repository is released under an OSI-approved license.
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-06-12 15:06 EST ------- I saw the mention of the OSI-approved license thing on their web site, but that seems to be as specific as they get.
Maybe I'll get lucky and someone authoritative will be at YAPC in a couple of weeks.
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-06-29 10:34 EST ------- I received the following message from the author:
Hi,
I've been meaning to deal with this but I've not got around to it. The OpenFrame package is released under both the Artistic license and the GPL.
When we have another release of the package I'll ensure there is a definitive license statement.
Regards, James.
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-06-29 10:51 EST ------- Excellent. I suggest including that correspondence in the package; it should be approveable after that but I've lost the context so I'll have to recheck.
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-07-07 13:54 EST ------- I'm not entirely sure how much of the email I should include in the package. (I had to reach the author via a third party. :-)
I've included the relevant bit in a README.LICENSE in -3. Given that it is confirmation of the license statement in lib/OpenFrame/Argument/Blob.pm, I hope that's sufficient.
http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-OpenFrame-3.05-3.src.rpm
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-07-07 14:00 EST ------- Yes, that looks reasonable; we now have some blanket statement of what the license is.
Unfortunately the dependency list includes: perl(Pipeline) perl(Pipeline) >= 2.00
which has been clarified to be a blocker since this review was started. That is the only remaining issue.
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-07-08 12:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10)
Unfortunately the dependency list includes: perl(Pipeline) perl(Pipeline) >= 2.00
which has been clarified to be a blocker since this review was started.
For the record, I think that's silly. :-)
It's fixed in -4 though.
http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-OpenFrame-3.05-4.src.rpm
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-07-08 15:06 EST ------- Well, the versioned dependency is completely meaningless in that case, so there's little point in having both.
The dependency list is now: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(CGI) perl(CGI::Cookie) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Spec) perl(File::Temp) perl(File::Type) perl(FileHandle) perl(HTTP::Headers) perl(HTTP::Response) perl(HTTP::Status) perl(IO::Null) perl(OpenFrame) perl(OpenFrame::Argument::Blob) perl(OpenFrame::Cookie) perl(OpenFrame::Cookies) perl(OpenFrame::Object) perl(OpenFrame::Request) perl(OpenFrame::Response) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response) perl(Pipeline) perl(Pipeline::Production) perl(Pipeline::Segment) perl(base) perl(constant) perl(strict)
Looks good; APPROVED
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
steve@silug.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-07-13 16:38 EST ------- Imported into CVS, branches created, and builds requested.
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-OpenFrame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=192577
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla