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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-03-17 07:02 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > OK, I've resolved each of the issues raised: > > > - I can't find any evidence of license terms under which this package can be > > distributed, which would be a blocker and in need of fixing upstream > > The rpm has always had tag: > 'License: distributable > ' > and there are no license restrictions or copyright in any source file > or on the package CPAN home-page. As perl-RPM2 is already distributed > in every Fedora Core and RHEL release except FC-5, these terms are > evidently acceptable. Put it this way; if this package had not been included in previous Core/RHEL releases, it would definitely not be allowed into Extras without a clear license. There is a similar issue affecting Bug 171640 (perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate). Given that packages migrating from Core to Extras must go through the same review process as any other package, I don't think this issue can waived so lightly. What I think needs to happen is one of: (a) Upstream clarifying the license, or (b) Legal stating that this particular package is OK (and, preferably, why), or (c) Legal stating that a class of packages into which this one falls (e.g. packages from CPAN, packages migrating from Core) are OK to be included without a clear license; this could be beneficial for perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate too. > > - Extras packages shouldn't have a buildreq on perl > > This package cannot be built without the perl package being > installed; hence, the 'BuildRequires: perl' tag. Perl is explicitly listed as one of the exclusions from BuildRequires in the packaging guidelines at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines and the package review guidelines at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines state that: MUST: A package must not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > > - latest changelog release tag doesn't match actual release tag > > huh? The %{version}-%{release} is 0.66-12 - latest changelog: > * Thu Mar 08 2006 Jason Vas Dias <jvdias@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.66-12 Not in the original SRPM, which had: * Fri Feb 03 2006 Jason Vas Dias <jvdias@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.66-11.1 > > - some of the tests fail but "make check" passes - why? > > Because the package was not being built as root. > > Now, all tests that require root access are skipped if being run by a non-root > user, so all tests pass as a non-root user; I've also tested that those tests > are run and pass if run by root. Good; I understand why the tests were failing originally, but what I don't understand is why the presence of failing tests didn't cause the package build to fail in %check. > > - missing buildreqs elfutils-libelf-devel and bzip2-devel > > Added. Good. Build in mock now works. > > - using find/filelist method for %files results in unowned directory > > %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/RPM2 > > I've added: > %dir %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/RPM2 > > to %files list. Good. > >- consider adding %{?dist} tag if this package is likely to be needed for > > future Fedora releases > > Added. Good. > Modified .spec file and srpm at: > http://people.redhat.com/~jvdias/perl-RPM2.spec > http://people.redhat.com/~jvdias/perl-RPM2-0.66-12.src.rpm Please bump the release number for iterations of packages during the review process; it helps people to see which version is being referred to. Still to do: clarify license, remove perl buildreq. Then I can approve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
