Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: perl-Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX - Pod::PseudoPod::LaTeX Perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=557686
Summary: Review Request: perl-Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX - Pod::PseudoPod::LaTeX Perl module Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: gp@zimt.uni-siegen.de QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/perl-Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/perl-Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX-1.000-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description: This module is a Pod::PseudoPod subclass, itself a Pod::Simple subclass. This means that this is a full-fledged POD parser. It is usefull for book manuscripts.
rpmlint reports no errors or warnings.
Scratch build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1937764
It should be easy to review.
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=557686
Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203@freenet.de
--- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2010-01-22 06:16:08 EST --- MUSTFIX:
* Package must own - /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Pod - /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Pod/PseudoPod
Proposal: Add this to %files %{perl_vendorlib}/*
* Please remove this: BuildRequires: perl >= 1:v5.6.2
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=557686
--- Comment #2 from Gerd Pokorra gp@zimt.uni-siegen.de 2010-01-22 08:12:35 EST --- The directory '%{perl_vendorlib}/Pod/PseudoPod' is owned by the package: perl-Pod-PseudoPod-0.15-1.fc12.noarch
rpm -qf /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Pod/PseudoPod
perl-Pod-PseudoPod-0.15-1.fc12.noarch
So I think this package should not also own the directory PseudoPod.
The perl BuildRequires is removed.
The spec file under the URL is update: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/perl-Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/perl-Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX-1.000-2.fc12.src.rpm
Scratch build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1938247
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=557686
--- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2010-01-22 08:34:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #2)
The directory '%{perl_vendorlib}/Pod/PseudoPod' is owned by the package: perl-Pod-PseudoPod-0.15-1.fc12.noarch
Irrelevant - The perl packaging rules mandate all perl modules to own all directories below %{perl_vendorlib}
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=557686
--- Comment #4 from Gerd Pokorra gp@zimt.uni-siegen.de 2010-01-22 10:09:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #3)
Irrelevant - The perl packaging rules mandate all perl modules to own all directories below %{perl_vendorlib}
You are right! I looked in the documentation and saw it at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Directory_Ownership
So I changed it in the spec file to your suggestion: %{perl_vendorlib}/*
I do not increment the release number but the files at the URLs are updated and I made a new scratch build.
Spec URL: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/perl-Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/perl-Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX-1.000-2.fc12.src.rpm
Scratch build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1938830
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=557686
Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.seyman@club-internet.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |emmanuel.seyman@club-intern | |et.fr AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |emmanuel.seyman@club-intern | |et.fr Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.seyman@club-internet.fr 2010-01-30 13:39:08 EST --- Taking.
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=557686
Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.seyman@club-internet.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.seyman@club-internet.fr 2010-01-30 14:18:58 EST ---
- = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1953577
[x] Rpmlint output: 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPL+ or Artistic [-] 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 is included in %doc. [-] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 1009516b6281538960fae00b4e0ac363 Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX-1.000.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [ ] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
Nitpick: the package's description doesn't adequately describe it.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: f12.x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: f12.x86_64 [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [x] %check is present and the tests pass
All tests successful. Files=5, Tests=54, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.04 usr 0.02 sys + 0.23 cusr 0.03 csys = 0.32 CPU) Result: PASS
APPROVED.
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=557686
Gerd Pokorra gp@zimt.uni-siegen.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Gerd Pokorra gp@zimt.uni-siegen.de 2010-02-01 07:01:20 EST --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Pod-PseudoPod Short Description: Pod::PseudoPod::LaTeX Perl module Owners: gerd Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5 InitialCC: gerd
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=557686
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-02-01 17:55:20 EST --- The Name doesn't look right in the cvs request. Can you confirm and resubmit?
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=557686
--- Comment #9 from Gerd Pokorra gp@zimt.uni-siegen.de 2010-02-01 19:14:07 EST --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX Short Description: Pod::PseudoPod::LaTeX Perl module Owners: gerd Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5 InitialCC: gerd
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=557686
--- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-02-02 23:14:52 EST --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
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=557686
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-03 07:46:35 EST --- perl-Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX-1.000-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX-1.000-2.fc12
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=557686
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-04 20:50:45 EST --- perl-Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX-1.000-2.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=557686
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |1.000-2.fc12 Resolution| |ERRATA
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org