On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 06:23:43PM +0100, Jan Kasprzak wrote:
Marcela Mašláňová wrote: : On 12/02/2011 04:34 PM, Jan Kasprzak wrote: : Welcome to Perl packaging for Fedora. : : Paul (one of sponsors) was already looking at your review, but because : of license it could take more time. Could you prepare something else : from your list? It might be faster to get sponsored on other reviews if : this got stalled.
Yes. I have uploaded all the .specs and src.rpms I have to http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/tmp/fedora-packages/. I can submit a review request for some of them
Just submit them for review and don't forget to make them depending on FE-NEEDSPONSOR meta-bug (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor).
(do you want to pick up one or two?).
Until becoming packager, only sponsors can do the review. There is not so much sponsors (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/members/packager/*/sponsor) interested in Perl. Marcela mentioned Paul, I know about Iain (iarnell) and Ralf (corsepiu).
There are two problems with the above packages:
- the directory ownership of %perl_vendorarch, which cpanspec generates differently than required by Packaging guidelines (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757156#c1 for details). I will fix it tomorrow.
Both expressions are equivalent. The one from guidelines is more general. We accept any readable writing. The problem with cpanspec tool is it's old and not well-maintained.
- some of the packages from this batch depend on others (I think Authen::Passphrase is the topmost one), so in order to built them in mock, either a separate yum repository for these packages has to be created, or they have to be installed into mock chroot and mock --no-clean should be used.
Just link them by `Depends on' field properly in Bugzilla.
If they create dependency cycle, you need to weaken the explicit dependencies in spec file temporarily to overcome this problem (by using %perl_bootstrap condition).
-- Petr