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 166255 - Review Request: Sprog
Summary: Review Request: Sprog
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jef Spaleta
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2005-08-18 11:36 UTC by Gavin Henry
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-05-08 04:25:29 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
New spec file to address %check issue (deleted)
2005-08-19 11:23 UTC, Paul Howarth
no flags Details

Description Gavin Henry 2005-08-18 11:36:07 UTC
Spec Url:

Description: Sprog is a tool for working with data. It allows you to do all the things those clever Unix geeks can do with their cryptic command lines but you can now do it all with point-n-click and drag-n-drop.

Comment 1 Gavin Henry 2005-08-19 09:59:50 UTC
If I change:

%check ||:
make test


make test

The whole build fails.

What is actually wrong with:

%check ||:
make test

Comment 3 Paul Howarth 2005-08-19 10:19:19 UTC
Change it to:




The "|| :" after %check is redundant unless you're targeting very old (certainly
pre-Fedora) distros with your specfile.

Comment 4 Gavin Henry 2005-08-19 10:30:49 UTC
As I said, the build fails without %check ||:


Comment 5 Paul Howarth 2005-08-19 11:23:23 UTC
Created attachment 117906 [details]
New spec file to address %check issue

Try the attached spec file - builds fine for me in FC4. Won't build in the
Extras buildsystem until all the deps are available.

Comment 7 Jef Spaleta 2005-09-28 16:35:25 UTC
Seems the dep perl-Apache-LogRegex didn't make it through the build process for
the devel branch. The rest of the deps did get built. Can you push out a build
of perl-Apache-LogRegex?


Comment 8 Gavin Henry 2005-09-29 14:40:43 UTC
I thought I did. The Makefile seemed to have the name "meld" in it, so make tag
wouldn't work.

It is queued to build now.


Comment 9 Jef Spaleta 2005-10-13 23:50:10 UTC
Can't get this to build against current development tree.
The blasted perl-Template-Toolkit package requires perl(XML::DOM) 
which used to be provided by perl-libxml-enno
which was removed from Core on 20050921
nothing in developmnent right now provides perl(XML::DOM) so we are kinda stuck.

I've opened a bug ticket against perl-Template-Toolkit

I might be able to dig up a cachsed version of -enno so I can build this locally
outside of mock to get this review done.


Comment 10 Jef Spaleta 2005-10-14 00:42:52 UTC
okay i dug up a version of perl-libxml-enno and got Sprog to build locally.

Everything checks out on the MUST list of review items... except...
sprog needs a .desktop file since its a gui app.

So there are 2 outstanding issues right now
1) perl(Template) is a requires and a buildrequires.. but is a blocker to
getting this built until perl-Template-Toolkit is corrected to fix its dep problem

2) sprog needs a .desktop file.

Nothing we can do about #1. But in the meantime can you spin up a new srpm that
includes a .desktop file and the associated scriptlets.


Comment 11 Gavin Henry 2005-10-14 07:53:15 UTC
I'll see to 2.

Cheers Jef.

Comment 12 Jef Spaleta 2005-11-09 21:45:17 UTC
Okay looks like the perl(Template) is now available to build against.  Are you
prepared to hand out a srpm that takes care of the .desktop file issue?  We
might be able to finally get this sucker built against devel tree this weekend
and the review finished.


Comment 13 Gavin Henry 2005-11-09 22:11:42 UTC
Yeah. Soon as I get a sec ;-)

Comment 14 Gavin Henry 2005-11-16 11:55:30 UTC
Finally done, with correct desktop file, icon as per Grant's request and a patch
to fix some non-fatal build tests failing (provided by Grant).

New files:

Comment 15 Jef Spaleta 2005-12-03 16:27:35 UTC
Sorry it took so long to get back to this.

I'm having trouble getting to the

Comment 16 Jef Spaleta 2005-12-03 18:20:36 UTC
Okay... Sprog-0.14-4.noarch.rpm  builds in mock against fedora core development

rpnlint returns clean for mock built Sprog-0.14-4.fc5.noarch.rpm
specfile and packagenaming are good
Licensed as perl: GPL or Artistic
Has a desktop file.
no pre/post scriplets
md5sum of Source in srpm agrees with upstream source url in spec.
listed buildrequires look good
no shared or static libs
owns all the directories it creates
no -devel subpackage needed
patch to turn off some bogus test results in mock/buildsystem looks fine
mock built package seems to work on shallow functionality testing 

Doesn't BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
doesn't use desktop-file-install in %install

Needed Changes:
*need to add desktop-file-utils usage as outlined in

*Need to remove the explicit license files being created from perdoc
There was a policy change the policy now reads:
- MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.

I've made the necessary changes in Sprog-0.14-5.src.rpm

I'm starting the clock for approval. If I don't hear anything back about
problems with Sprog-0.14-5  I'll approve this in 24 hours.


Comment 17 Gavin Henry 2005-12-03 18:53:19 UTC
My fault, sorry. Was setting up Catalyst on that domain, and forgot to put it back.


Comment 18 Jef Spaleta 2005-12-04 17:42:08 UTC
Okay not quite 24 hours, but close.

Sprog-0.14-5.fc5.src.rpm  is approved for FE development.

Comment 19 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2006-02-21 09:31:12 UTC
So is this package in limbo or what?

Comment 20 Gavin Henry 2006-02-22 10:49:16 UTC
I don't think so. It's been commited, so not sure what is next.

Comment 21 Gavin Henry 2006-02-22 11:47:57 UTC
Cheers for the kick Ignacio

Rebuilt to test everythign is still ok as Sprog-0.14-6.src.rpm. Commited to
devel tree.


Comment 22 Alex Lancaster 2006-02-22 17:22:52 UTC
I tried installing Sprog for FC-4 from here:

just for kicks, just to see if the appropriate requires would be pulled in from
FE on FC-4, and I found that


have not yet been built for FC-4, although they all _do_ have branches for FC-4
in CVS (and hence work in devel).  While you are waiting for the sprog FC-4
branch to be created, perhaps these deps can be built for FC-4 just to make sure
it will work.

Comment 23 Alex Lancaster 2006-02-22 17:45:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #22)

> While you are waiting for the sprog FC-4  branch to be created, perhaps 
> these deps can be built for FC-4 just to make sure it will work.

bug #182455, bug #182458, bug #182459

Comment 24 Jef Spaleta 2006-02-22 18:10:13 UTC
wtf.. can we PLEASE not overload this initial review bugreport concerning
requests to build the fc4 branch. requests for fc4 branch builds should not
block initial review request report resolution.  

as soon as sprog is built in devel.. this bug is going to be closed..
regardless.. of what the blocker status is concerning fc4 branch request.
Because as a reviewer who has taken on assignment for this bug this is outside
the scope of what the review request bug covers.


Comment 25 Alex Lancaster 2006-02-22 18:20:38 UTC
(In reply to comment #24)

> as soon as sprog is built in devel.. this bug is going to be closed..
> regardless.. of what the blocker status is concerning fc4 branch request.
> Because as a reviewer who has taken on assignment for this bug this is outside
> the scope of what the review request bug covers.

Sprog's been built.  Waiting for being signed and pushed.  Sorry for the noise,
I didn't realise that Sprog bugzilla component had already been created.  I've
created a bug now: bug #182461.

I've opened up bugs on dependent package, but I didn't make them blockers on
this one, I'll switch them to above. ;-)  That's the last from me.

Comment 26 Christian Iseli 2006-03-28 15:32:21 UTC
Looks like this package is imported and built.  Please close this ticket or
explain why it needs to stay open...

Comment 27 Michael J Knox 2006-05-08 04:25:29 UTC
package is imported and built... PLEASE remember to close package review when
imported into cvs etc

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.