perl-devel May 2007

perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

14 participants
80 discussions

Test::Pod::Coverage tests...
by Chris Weyl 08 May '07

08 May '07

Hey all-- So there's a rather spirited discussion perl packaging discussion going on over at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237883 about Test::Pod::Coverage module tests, and their importance. The canonical approach is to insist on all tests being enabled that possibly can -- even to the point of requiring other modules be packaged to enable these tests. "Test as much as possible." Test::Pod::Coverage tests don't actually test the functionality of the module. Further, they can't tell you if that documentation is any good, or even plain wrong. We also have a practice of disabling this test out of hand if it fails for whatever reason... Further, usually upstream takes the step of explicitly requiring this test be enabled -- e.g. via TEST_POD=1 or some other mechanism. Documentation coverage is a good Kwalitee indication (as they say), not always an indication of good quality -- and certainly not a consistent, reliable indication of that. My opinion is that we ought to not mandate the use of Pod coverage tests, simply because for our purposes it doesn't really matter what their result is. If they're present, we should conditionalize the tests (e.g. %_with_pod_tests magic or some such), but not insist on them by default. Either way, we ought to document this in Packaging/Perl -- which I took a quick (and probably dirty) pass at reworking under PackagingDrafts/Perl. -Chris -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia

4 5

[Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 May '07

07 May '07

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-RPM2 Alias: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood(a)redhat.com 2007-05-07 16:20 EST ------- Oh. I assumed f7 was going to include the newer version of rpm (your comment #10), but it looks like we're at 4.4.2. Anyway, built for f7, I'll send a request to rel-eng folks that it be included. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

1 0

Bugzilla 3.0 Perl Requirements
by Max Kanat-Alexander 07 May '07

07 May '07

Hey folks. Just wanted to let you know that Bugzilla 3.0 (which should be out soon) has a few perl pre-reqs that aren't in Extras. One of them is required: Email-Send And all of the others are optional but still useful: Template-GD Email-MIME-Attachment-Stripper Email-Reply In particular, Template-GD really should be in FE--it was originally part of Template-Toolkit and was moved out in version 2.15. I figured I'd let you know sooner rather than later, when users kept asking you for the packages, or when you had to build them anyway to build a new Bugzilla package. :-) -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Competent, Friendly Bugzilla Services. And Everything Else, too.

2 1

[Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 May '07

06 May '07

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-RPM2 Alias: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 bugzilla(a)redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|normal |medium jpo(a)di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|NEXTRELEASE | ------- Additional Comments From jpo(a)di.uminho.pt 2007-05-06 11:28 EST ------- (In reply to comment #39) > ok, looks like they both built successfully. Finally done with this bug. :-) Not yet ;) You haven't built it for development (Fedora 7). jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

1 0

[Bug 237612] New: WWW::Bugzilla fails to fetch bug
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 May '07

06 May '07

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237612 Summary: WWW::Bugzilla fails to fetch bug Product: Fedora Extras Version: fc6 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl-WWW-Bugzilla AssignedTo: jpo(a)di.uminho.pt ReportedBy: cweyl(a)alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list(a)redhat.com Description of problem: WWW::Bugzilla fails to fetch bug with: Can't locate object method "form" via package "WWW::Mechanize" at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/WWW/Bugzilla.pm line 271. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): perl-WWW-Mechanize-1.22-2.fc6 perl-WWW-Bugzilla-0.8-1.fc6 How reproducible: Attempt to open an existing bug. Actual results: *boom* (see above) Expected results: A valid WWW::Bugzilla object to manipulate the given bug. Additional info: It appears WWW::Bugzilla 0.9 fixes this. Should be an easyfix as 0.9 is already available in devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

1 1

[Bug 239219] New: perl-PAR-Dist-0.22 is available
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 May '07

06 May '07

1 1

[Bug 238907] PPC64 builds fail due to missing deps
by Red Hat Bugzilla 05 May '07

05 May '07

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: PPC64 builds fail due to missing deps Alias: PPC64MissingDeps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238907 cweyl(a)alumni.drew.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |239118 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

1 0

Catalyst status...
by Chris Weyl 05 May '07

05 May '07

So we're making good progress with the base Catalyst packages: all of the packages Catalyst::Runtime depends on have been reviewed and have been imported/built; in addition to Catalyst::Runtime, there are three other packages which need to be reviewed before Catalyst::Devel can be. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=238238 Beyond that, I suspect the next course of action would be to package up the outstanding deps for Task::Catalyst::Tutorial... I've put the output of this distro's deps (from my hacked version of cpanspec) up at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl/Catalyst. If anyone wants to help (*cough* recent emails *cough*), reviews are always good; packaging up parts of Task::Catalyst::Tutorial and submitting them would also be good (as I can help with reviews then). Anyways, enjoy :) -Chris -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia

1 0

[Bug 237594] New: Upgrade to SVK 2.0.1
by Red Hat Bugzilla 05 May '07

05 May '07

1 3

Catalyst / DBIx::Class / SQL::Translator
by Dave Cross 02 May '07

02 May '07

Last September there was some talk on this about getting Catalyst (and therefore DBIx::Class and SQL::Translator) into Extras. Was there any progress on this? And if people are help up through lack of resources, is there anything I can do to help? Cheers, Dave...

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

perl-devel May 2007