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=190705
Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Base 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-Test-Base/perl-Test-Base.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Test-Base-0.50-1.src.rpm Description: Testing is usually the ugly part of Perl module authoring. Perl gives you a standard way to run tests with Test::Harness, and basic testing primitives with Test::More. After that you are pretty much on your own to develop a testing framework and philosophy. Test::More encourages you to make your own framework by subclassing Test::Builder, but that is not trivial.
(This is a build requirement for the new version of perl-YAML currently in devel CVS.)
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-Test-Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-05-04 12:26 EST ------- Hold off reviewing this one for a bit... It requires Module::Install, which in turn requires a whole stack of modules. I'll be submitting that stack ASAP.
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-Test-Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705
steve@silug.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |190937
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-05-06 18:07 EST ------- OK, the stack was smaller than I thought (one module). Review away. :-)
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-Test-Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705
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-Test-Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-05-07 22:01 EST ------- You might consider adding BuildRequires: perl(Algorithm::Diff), perl(Text::Diff), perl(YAML) for slightly better test coverage.
Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and follows the Perl specfile template. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. It's not included separately in the package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it. * source files match upstream: 1917571661a8302626a8c82eb047f941 Test-Base-0.50.tar.gz 1917571661a8302626a8c82eb047f941 Test-Base-0.50.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. * 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: All tests successful, 3 tests and 4 subtests skipped. Files=98, Tests=418, 6 wallclock secs ( 4.71 cusr + 1.49 csys = 6.20 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
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-Test-Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705
jpo@di.uminho.pt changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jpo@di.uminho.pt
------- Additional Comments From jpo@di.uminho.pt 2006-05-07 23:12 EST ------- I've some reservations about the approval of this module. It appears to have several optional/missing Requirements and BR.
BR: Text::Diff, YAML Req: Text::Diff, LWP::Simple, YAML
I think we should at least BuildRequires: perl(Text::Diff) and Requires: perl(Text::Diff), perl(LWP::Simple)
Note: IIRC the new version of YAML requires Test::Base => may cause circular dependencies problems. Note2: It's 4:00am. I will give another look at this module in a few hours.
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-Test-Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-05-07 23:43 EST ------- You'll note I suggested the addition of those BR:s, but all they add is additional test coverage.
As far as I know, we have no policy on optional requirements. I suppose there's no harm in adding them as long as they're small and we have repoclosure, but I would argue that it would be a terrible idea to dictate that all optional requirements be made mandatory. So I would leave it up to the maintainer.
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-Test-Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-05-08 13:51 EST ------- I'm importing -2 with explicit dependencies on Text::Diff and Algorithm::Diff. That makes all the tests pass.
Let me know if I need to make any further changes.
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-Test-Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705
------- Additional Comments From jpo@di.uminho.pt 2006-05-08 14:01 EST ------- Steven,
The Algorithm::Diff requirement and build requirement can be dropped as Text::Diff requires it.
The Test::Base::Filter may use the LWP::Simple module to download files. Being this a test module I think it should be nice to require it (not BR).
jpo
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-Test-Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-05-08 14:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7)
The Algorithm::Diff requirement and build requirement can be dropped as Text::Diff requires it.
The Test::Base::Filter may use the LWP::Simple module to download files. Being this a test module I think it should be nice to require it (not BR).
Done and done.
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-Test-Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705
------- Additional Comments From jpo@di.uminho.pt 2006-05-08 14:25 EST ------- Thanks Steven.
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-Test-Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705
Bug 190705 depends on bug 190937, which changed state.
Bug 190937 Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Install https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190937
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-Test-Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705
steve@silug.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2006-05-09 12:56 EST ------- Imported into CVS, branches created, and builds pending.
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-Test-Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=190705
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide
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=190705
Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bochecha@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #11 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org 2011-01-19 04:22:39 EST --- This package is in EPEL5 but not EPEL6. Is there any reason for that?
I would like to see this package in EPEL6, and I am willing to help co-maintain it.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla