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

Bug 199254

Summary: Review Request: perl-perlmenu
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Parag AN(पराग) <panemade>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Kevin Fenzi <kevin>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhide   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-09-06 03:19:07 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 163779, 199108    
Description Flags
Proposed spec none

Description Parag AN(पराग) 2006-07-18 13:34:47 UTC
Spec URL:

Description: Perl library module for curses-based menus & data-entry templates.

Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-07-18 13:38:27 UTC
When i ran rpmlint on Binary RPM i got
E: perl-perlmenu no-binary
W: perl-perlmenu siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/
W: perl-perlmenu siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/

I am totally new to Perl packaging and when i checked perl packaging wiki
page(, it did not help me.
This is my first perl package.

Comment 2 Paul Howarth 2006-07-18 13:42:21 UTC
Use the perl template spec from fedora-rpmdevtools as a starting point instead.

Comment 3 Steven Pritchard 2006-07-18 23:59:20 UTC
Or use cpanspec, which is in Extras.  (Although wow, this thing is packaged
*really* poorly.  cpanspec dies fairly spectacularly on it.)

Since that isn't going to work, here are some useful suggestions:

> Source0:{version}.tar.gz

Don't hard-code a mirror.  Use

> install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT{%{perl_sitelib},%{_usrsrc}/examples/%{name}-%{version}}
> install -m 644 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{perl_sitelib}
> %{perl_sitelib}/*


I don't think %{_usrsrc} is ever an appropriate place for anything.  Try just
including "%doc examples" in your %files section.

If you "find examples -type f -exec chmod 644 {} \;" in %prep, rpm shouldn't
pick up any dependencies from the example scripts either.

Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-07-19 04:30:03 UTC
as per your suggestions i added foolowing line with examples
but i got 
cp: cannot stat `examples': No such file or directory
how can i solve this?

Comment 5 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-07-19 04:58:49 UTC
I checked for above error, it will not work as source itself does not contain
any examples directory. So i tried to overwirte docdir but it failed with
error: magic_file(ms,
failed: mode 040755 cannot open
(No such file or directory)
rpmbuild: rpmfc.c:1251: rpmfcClassify: Assertion `ftype != ((void *)0)' failed.

My Updated files
Spec URL:

Comment 6 Steven Pritchard 2006-07-19 17:35:34 UTC
Created attachment 132698 [details]
Proposed spec

* Add BuildArch: noarch.
* Create "examples" directory and move the examples to it.
* Fix permissions, script interpreter on examples.

Comment 7 Steven Pritchard 2006-07-19 17:38:30 UTC
Oh, one other tip...  Be sure to update Release and your changelog as you make
changes during a review.

Comment 8 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-07-20 03:45:31 UTC
Thnaks for helping for solving examples directory problem. I saw the SPEC file
and understood that i have to do mkdir examples under %prep.
Spec URL:

Comment 9 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-07-31 04:37:10 UTC
I need review of this package so that in case if something is remaining in this
package i can correct/add it.

Comment 10 Ralf Corsepius 2006-07-31 05:19:37 UTC
Some comments:

- IMO, should not be installed to %{perl_vendorlib}
  It's not a perl module, it's not being used by, so I don't see much   
  reason to install it. The examples use it as 'require "./";' so
  might make some sense to install it to .../examples.

- doesn't use VENDORDIR nor OPTIMIZE. Passing them to is meaningless.

Comment 11 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-07-31 05:33:45 UTC
ok will change the installation path to examples directory and
remove VENDORDIR and OPTIMIZE parameteres to

Comment 12 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-07-31 05:42:26 UTC
I updated package and new package have following links
Spec URL:

Comment 13 Kevin Fenzi 2006-09-01 02:27:44 UTC
Hey Parag. 

I would be happy to take a look at reviewing this and potentially sponsoring 
you, as long as none of the other folks above would like to dive in with a 

Look for a review later tonight or tomorrow unless someone else wants to step 
in first. 

Comment 14 Kevin Fenzi 2006-09-01 02:53:49 UTC
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
See below - License(LGPL or Artistic)
See below - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
b931859ed581970f3fb05420316b39d3  perlmenu.v4.0.tar.gz
b931859ed581970f3fb05420316b39d3  perlmenu.v4.0.tar.gz.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - No rpmlint output.
OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it.
OK - Should build in mock.


1. The license seems to have changed to LGPL or artistic, not GPL.
You have:
License:        GPL or Artistic

Comment 15 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-09-01 03:02:53 UTC
Thanks for reviwing this package but i didn't get what you said in Issues?
I checked upstream source contains both License file included in tarball so i
kept both names under License tag.

Comment 16 Kevin Fenzi 2006-09-01 03:06:29 UTC
The COPYING file and one of the Licenses they say this package is released 
under is the:


You need to change "GPL" to "LGPL" in your License tag. 
Does that make sense?

Comment 17 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-09-01 03:24:37 UTC
Ohh sorry my mistake here is updated URL's
Spec URL:

Comment 18 Kevin Fenzi 2006-09-01 16:28:16 UTC
The package from comment #17 looks good to me. 

I see you have closed some of your other submissions. Sorry for the delay in 
getting you sponsored. Do you still want to maintain this package (and your 
other open submissions)? I hope so. Note that your (not closed) kmod 
submissions were likely stalled because kmod's are still in flux. Several of 
your other packages seem to have been pretty complicated to package, making 
them difficult for a first time packager. 

I know you have done a large amount of reviews on pending packages, and
it seems to me that you are at the point where you understand the guidelines 
pretty well.

I'm ready to APPROVE this package and sponsor you if you are still 
interested... let me know.

Comment 19 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-09-02 04:07:42 UTC
Thanks Kevin,
   Because my other package gutenprint is already in a better position and that
package required this package, it will not be good to close this bug. I was
thinking to close this bug yesterday only like i did others. But i saw already
many peoples facing problems with existing gimp-print package. I helped some
peoples also by recommending gutenprint and got response from them that this is
awesome package and its really really needed here as FC is my favorite distro.
Therefore i submitted package here.
   So i will continue to have maintainership for this and gutenprint package.
But will not going to reopen my other bugs at all.

Comment 20 Kevin Fenzi 2006-09-02 04:32:46 UTC
Ok. I think thats unfortunate, but I'm glad you are willing to maintain this 
and gutenprint (once it's approved). Perhaps down the road you will be 
interested in trying to get some more packages imported. :)

In any case, this package is APPROVED. 
I would be happy to sponsor you. 

Can you continue the process from step 10 at:

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via email or catch me 
on the #fedora-extras irc channel (nick: nirik). 

I can probibly take a look at gutenprint later in the weekend, unless someone 
else does so first.

Don't forget to close this bug as NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and 

Comment 21 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-09-04 04:47:33 UTC
I am not able to access CVS at all so may be this bug will be in pending state.
Once i got CVS access and i will import package i will CLOSE this bug