[Bug 180767] Invalid rpm group: Applications/CPAN
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Invalid rpm group: Applications/CPAN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180767
rc040203(a)freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fedora-perl-devel-
| |list(a)redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From rc040203(a)freenet.de 2006-02-10 09:07 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> Fell free to provide a spec file patch. Or even takeover this package...
> I don't want to maintain any perl modules
I am already maintaining too many packages and am not really interested taking
over this particular package.
Anyway, I just just had a deeper look into this package and found it to be
really mis-packaged. Besides the nitpicking rpmlint complains about, the most
critical bug is this package tagged "noarch", while it actually (unless I'm
missing something) should be "arched".
I am having a deeper look into it and will try to come up with a patch.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
17 years, 7 months
[Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain)
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034
tibbs(a)math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2006-02-05 13:09 EST -------
Cool. OK, everything's looking good:
No rpmlint blockers, just the end-of-line warning.
Package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
License is acceptable and matches License: tag.
Specfile is properly named, legible, well-written, well-commented and uses
macros consistently.
Source file matches upstream.
Package builds and installs on FC3 and FC4.
BuildRequires: is proper.
Approved.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
17 years, 7 months
[Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain)
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034
------- Additional Comments From Nicolas.Mailhot(a)laPoste.net 2006-02-05 12:33 EST -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> We can't just ignore the guidelines, so I suggest removing the BuildRequires:
> while this gets worked out on the mailing list.
I strongly suspect most FE packages follow the official templates, so leaving it
might be the more conservative option IMHO. But I'll follow the reviewer position ;)
> Also, could you comment the %exclude you added, so it's obvious why this is
> required.
>
> I'll finish off the review in a few minutes.
Ok, new spec/srpm in 30s
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
17 years, 7 months
[Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain)
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2006-02-05 10:26 EST -------
I agree about the BuildRequires: perl thing, and indeed in another review I said
it was not a blocker (which was my mistake) but then I noticed the MUST. I'm
not sure what to do here; I think the MUST is unnecessary and conflicts with
language in the the packaging guidelines:
"There is no need to include the following packages or their dependencies as
BuildRequires because they would occur too often."
which doesn't sound very MUST like.
We can't just ignore the guidelines, so I suggest removing the BuildRequires:
while this gets worked out on the mailing list.
Also, could you comment the %exclude you added, so it's obvious why this is
required.
I'll finish off the review in a few minutes.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
17 years, 7 months