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 205309 (perl-Algorithm-C3)
Summary: | Review Request: perl-Algorithm-C3 - Module for merging hierarchies using the C3 algorithm | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Chris Weyl <cweyl> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
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, paul |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | jwboyer:
fedora-cvs+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://search.cpan.org/dist/Algorithm-C3/ | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-09-07 04:47:04 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, 205314 |
Description
Chris Weyl
2006-09-05 22:24:37 UTC
Why do you use Build instead of the more classical Makefile.PL? I personally don't care, but it is not what is proposed in the README. Build with Build.PL is what cpanspec spits out by default if available, as (I'm guessing here it's motivation here) it is a newer model. From my perspective, it builds just fine, and if upstream ever decides to drop Makefile.PL support we're all set. A couple of notes about "Makefile.PL vs Build.PL" or "ExtUtils::MakeMaker vs Module::Build" 1. If a perl distro includes both the Build.PL and the Makefile.PL file, there are good chances that the Makefile.PL has been generated from the Build.PL file. In these cases is better to package the module using Build.PL (BR: perl(Module::Build). Note: in the past the generated Makefile.PL not always installed correctly. 2. In the past the documentation of Module::Build stated that Module::Build *would* replace ExtUtils::MakeMaker. This now has been corrected (see the Module::Build changelog) and both installation methods will be supported. 3. In the past the Michael G Schwern's presentation "MakeMaker Is DOOMED! or MakeMaker is dead! Long live Module::Build!" also caused some confusion. (http://schwern.org/~schwern/talks/MakeMaker_Is_DOOMED/slides/slide001.html) Michael Schwern was at the time the perl test guy and the maintainer of ExtUtils::MakeMaker. 4. Module::Build is a perl core module since perl 5.9.4. Perl 5.10 will supported Makefile.PL and Build.PL natively. Right now Module::Build must be installed from CPAN or from a package repository. Module::Build is rather important as it doesn't require external utilities such as make (and its flavours) which is a must if you must support lot of platforms (UNIX, VMS, Win32, ...) jpo Thanks for the most excellent summary, Jose :) Would you mind if I posted that on the wiki somewhere? (In reply to comment #4) > Thanks for the most excellent summary, Jose :) Would you mind if I posted that > on the wiki somewhere? Not at all! Go ahead. One other thing that I should be placing in the wiki is this rather outdated document http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/perl/specfiles/. Do you know a good tool to convert HTML pages into wiki formats? Sorry to step into this conversation, but I have some time for reviews, so.... * source files match upstream: d087e68c937e7076bb07396b281685c1 Algorithm-C3-0.05.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Algorithm::C3) = 0.05 perl-Algorithm-C3 = 0.05-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=11, Tests=57, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.32 cusr + 0.14 csys = 0.46 CPU) * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the review! (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Thanks for the most excellent summary, Jose :) Would you mind if I posted that > > on the wiki somewhere? > > Not at all! Go ahead. The Packaging/Perl page would have been the obvious place but it's immutable to everyone outside the packaging committee now. > One other thing that I should be placing in the wiki is this rather outdated > document http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/perl/specfiles/. Do you know a good tool > to convert HTML pages into wiki formats? I'll volunteer to transcribe it if you like. Might be better to update it and/or strip out the outdated bits first though. (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > Thanks for the most excellent summary, Jose :) Would you mind if I posted that > > > on the wiki somewhere? > > > > Not at all! Go ahead. > > The Packaging/Perl page would have been the obvious place but it's immutable to > everyone outside the packaging committee now. And at least a member of the packaging committee :( > > > One other thing that I should be placing in the wiki is this rather outdated > > document http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/perl/specfiles/. Do you know a good tool > > to convert HTML pages into wiki formats? > > I'll volunteer to transcribe it if you like. Might be better to update it and/or > strip out the outdated bits first though. Thanks! That would be great. I will start updating it. Please branch for EL-4, EL-5. |