[Bug 665005] Review Request: perl-Server-Starter - Superdaemon for hot-deploying server programs

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=665005

Iain Arnell <iarnell at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #5 from Iain Arnell <iarnell at gmail.com> 2011-01-20 02:02:14 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> 
> > - newer version 0.11 is available
> Updated.

new source files match upstream:
    037d75831a23ca76cd306d678b20332e  Server-Starter-0.11.tar.gz

new package builds in mock:
    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2732540

> > - start_server script shouldn't be in main package's %doc
> Fixed (cf. below)

ack

> > - %files start_server section needs to set %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> Fixed.

ack


> > - spelling in description needs fixing (commenctions -> connections;
> > superdaemon is okay for me)
> cpanspec pulling in upstream text :) Fixed

ack


> > And I'm not entirely convinced that start_server needs its own sub-package,
> > why not just include it in the main package?
> 
> I package it separately, because
> a) I consider /usr/bin/start_server to be a very poor choice of script naming,
> which is causing confusions related to start-stop-daemon etc.
> 
> Initially, I had tried not to ship it and to move it into %doc instead, until I
> subsequently found it is used by another other package. start_server's presence
> in %doc was a remnant of these experiments.
> 
> ATM, I am tempted to go a step further: Rename the sub package into
> "start_server" instead of "perl-Start-Server-start_server" ;)
> 
> b) I wanted to reduce the deps between perl-Start-Server package and other
> packages, because
> -  So far, start_server is not used by an run-time package and is only used by
> the testsuite of another package which is currently waiting for review.
> 
> - /usr/bin/start_server pulls in additional deps, which are not being used by
> perl-Start-Server itself [ATM all these additional deps happen to be provided
> by the core perl package, so this argument is mostly moot]

OK. I think the existing sub-package name is better, though. "start_server"
seems a little too generic. Since it's not really intended as an end-user
application, it can hide away in perl- package namespace.

> (In reply to comment #3)
> > And if you keep the sub-package, I think it should explicitly require
> > perl-Server-Starter = %{version}-%{release}
> Hmm, I don't see much need to do so
> 
> * start_server actually is an application, which only happens to be bundled
> with the Server-Starter-tarball, but otherwise is only loose tied to
> perl(Server::Starter), just like any other arbitrary perl-application.
> 
> * start_server originates from the same tarball as perl(Server::Starter), so it
> will be updated at the same time.

According to guidelines on requiring base package, "It is almost always better
to over specify the version, so it's best practice to just use a fully
versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}". Otherwise its
possible to "yum update perl-Server-Starter" and end up with new module and
older start_service script.

APPROVED (with explicit requires in sub-package).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.