Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 189452
Summary: | Review Request: perl-Curses - Curses bindings for perl | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Garrick Staples <garrick> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jochen Schmitt <jochen> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | jose.p.oliveira.oss, steve.traylen |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-cvs+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-04-24 20:02:09 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Garrick Staples
2006-04-20 03:01:34 UTC
Good: + Local buid works + Mock build works fine Bad: - Source0 should contain a full-qualified URL - Perl should be not included as Buildrequires. - The package should contain the text of the license Needswork: * the license should be "GPL or Artistic". Check the README file. * add the following doc files "Copying Artistic README" (the license files were already mentioned) * add the demo scripts as doc Others improvements: * use the following url instead http://search.cpan.org/dist/Curses/ as it's much more useful Thanks for the feedback, I think I have everything fixed up. I wasn't entirely sure how demo scripts should be included in %doc because that triggers rpmlint. I corrected #!/usr/local/bin/perl and removed execute bits. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~garrick/perl-Curses.spec http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~garrick/perl-Curses-1.13-2.src.rpm From my point of you, you may put the demo scripts into %doc and ignore the rpmlint messages. Is 1.13-2 acceptable in its current form, or should I not remove the execute bits? (In reply to comment #5) > Is 1.13-2 acceptable in its current form, or should I not remove the execute bits? You could leave the exec bits on. The extra dependencies you get as a result of this are: * /usr/bin/perl * perl(Curses) * perl(ExtUtils::testlib) perl(Curses) is provided by the package itself, and the other two are provided by the main perl package, which is already a dependency of this package. So there aren't any new dependencies introduced by leaving the exec bits on. It might also be worth adding a comment in the spec file that the worrying-looking output from the build script...: Making a guess for "c-config.h"... WARNING: Your Curses form.h file appears to be in the default system search path, which will not work for us because of the conflicting Perl form.h file. This means your 'make' will probably fail unless you fix this, as described in the INSTALL file. ... can be ignored because /usr/include/form.h is a symlink to /usr/include/ncurses/form.h, which the Makefile.PL finds and uses quite happily. Put the exec bits back and added a note about the warning. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~garrick/perl-Curses.spec http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~garrick/perl-Curses-1.13-3.src.rpm (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Is 1.13-2 acceptable in its current form, or should I not remove the execute bits? > > You could leave the exec bits on. The extra dependencies you get as a result of > this are: > > * /usr/bin/perl > * perl(Curses) > * perl(ExtUtils::testlib) > > perl(Curses) is provided by the package itself, and the other two are provided > by the main perl package, which is already a dependency of this package. So > there aren't any new dependencies introduced by leaving the exec bits on. 1) IIRC there are plans to disallowed this in the future (no docs with execution permissions). Even rpmlint already warns about requirements being pulled in by doc files: W: perl-Curses doc-file-dependency ... 2) Right now the only way to avoid the requirements pulled in by perl modules (.pm files) shipped as doc is to filter them out. jpo PUBLISH++ MD5SUMS: 4cf5520405d5a24fac3a4b3d60db516d perl-Curses-1.13-3.src.rpm 33f6a17f9ece7efda2dde3431e1540f6 Curses-1.13.tgz 07deea06fa73cb099cf7d77a8e5d3b8b perl-Curses.spec Good: * CPAN tarball MD5 digest matches the one included in the SRPM * URL and Source URL are valid * License verified (README file) * Build Requirements are correct * perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_xxx) present * perl vendor libs present * Builds without problems in FC-3 and FC-5 * (Un)installs without problems in FC-3 and FC-5 * The demo files run correctly * No relevant bugs http://rt.cpan.org/NoAuth/Bugs.html?Dist=Curses Minor notes: * the comment in the %files section could/should be dropped * see previous comment about executable doc files This a my vote for publishing this package. As this package has several reviewers, the final approval should be done by Jochen Schmitt (the first reviewer). jpo As long as the reviewers are disagreeing with each other, I'll throw in my own opinion :) In the interest of maintaining a strict seperation of code and data, %doc files should not be executable. Whoever added the "doc-file-dependency" warning to rpmlint was wise, and should take the next step of printing an error for exec bits. QStapler, from my view the demo files should be contains in the %doc section, becouse the aint of this file is to demonstrate the use of the package. Thank you Petro for the Co-Review. Form my point the package is APPROVED. (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > Is 1.13-2 acceptable in its current form, or should I not remove the execute > bits? > > > > You could leave the exec bits on. The extra dependencies you get as a result of > > this are: > > > > * /usr/bin/perl > > * perl(Curses) > > * perl(ExtUtils::testlib) > > > > perl(Curses) is provided by the package itself, and the other two are provided > > by the main perl package, which is already a dependency of this package. So > > there aren't any new dependencies introduced by leaving the exec bits on. > > 1) IIRC there are plans to disallowed this in the future (no docs with execution > permissions). Even rpmlint already warns about requirements being pulled in by > doc files: > > W: perl-Curses doc-file-dependency ... > > 2) Right now the only way to avoid the requirements pulled in by perl modules > (.pm files) shipped as doc is to filter them out. My point was that although there are "logically" additional deps from having the executable deps, in practice there are in fact no additional deps *in this case* because the same packages that satisfy the main deps also satisfy the "doc" deps. Of course that could change if some modules were split out from the main perl package. If at some time in the future rpm doesn't allow executable docs, that's also fine by me, as is this package, with or without the executable docs. Thanks for approval. The package should be showing up on mirrors soon. Properly block FE-ACCEPT Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-Curses Owners: stevetraylen New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 I emailed Garrick requesting that this package also be built for EPEL to which he responded: How would you feel about taking it over as the maintainer? HPCC/Linux Systems Admin Garrick I am happy to become the owner of this package and then also create the EL-4, EL-5 branch. I think such a CVS request is also the way to change package ownership. Steve cvs done on the EL-5/EL-4 branches. For the rest, Garrick should be able to approve you at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Curses perl-Curses-1.27-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Curses-1.27-4.el5 perl-Curses-1.27-3.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Curses-1.27-3.el4 perl-Curses-1.27-3.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. perl-Curses-1.27-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |