Bug 149637
Summary: | QA review of perl-Class-MethodMaker 2.05 package | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Dennis Gregorovic <dgregor> | ||||
Component: | perl-Class-MethodMaker | Assignee: | Dennis Gregorovic <dgregor> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | 3 | CC: | jose.p.oliveira.oss | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-cvs+
|
||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2005-03-24 00:32:28 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: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Dennis Gregorovic
2005-02-24 19:04:11 UTC
Created attachment 111408 [details] Several corrections -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 NEEDSWORK MD5SUMS: f6abb24099fe3d22736c4e6a4d1c1e73 perl-Class-MethodMaker-2.05-1.src.rpm a4092146c05bac58b3f99b3f5d2a9a75 Class-MethodMaker-2.05.tar.gz ad6e38a4a12b0057e86331e775540643 perl-Class-MethodMaker.spec NeedsWork: * the SRPM should be signed * for binary perl modules (eg: i386) we only need to define "perl_vendorarch" NOTE: this macro already exists since rpm 4.3 (FC2) but is always nice for backward compatibility (<FC2). (http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/perl/specfiles/#RPMVER) * Fedora Extras doesn't use Epoch (Fedora.US did use) * the License is incomplete the expression "... same terms as Perl itself" implies the GPL/Artistic licenses. * URL we use a more generic URL (read -> easier for automatic generation) as it doesn't have the auhor CPAN login (see patch). * Source we use a smaller CPAN URL (see patch). * missing build requirement This module uses IPC::Run during tests. We try to maximize test coverage. * perl(MODULE_COMPAT_xxx) Just to match the template. * build section For binary modules is nice to inline replace the Makefile. Omitting the perl inline script breaks the building process in older FCs (eg: FC1). It doesn't break the building process in FC3. * install section use make pure_install instead (avoids at least a problem with certain MakeMaker versions and also doesn't generate the perllocal.pod dile) * check section skip the signature tests. The building process shouldn't have to import authors PGP keys. The signature tests should be done manually by QA ppl (check patch). * files section for binary modules use the perl_vendorarch macro. With perl_vendorlib the package would own several perl directories. See the fedora-rpmdevtools perl specfile template. * changelog please include the package version and release (rpmlint catches this) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCHkwnl0metZG9hRsRArhSAKDEtDAD2tMCIYryUY1C6I1kpAkIvACggr13 xtXH2Luik6RdiwaeL5rYj/8= =uZKX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Thanks for the feedback! I've updated the spec file and rebuilt the RPMs (2.05-2). One thing: I notice you didn't use %{version} in the Source URL. Any objection to keeping that in? Also, I won't be able to sign the packages until Monday. That's not critical although it makes life easier for QA ppl having the version hardcoded in the source(s) URL(s) - testing the URL(s) is only a matter of copy and paste to a different terminal (using HEAD , wget, ...). PS - could you mention the bugzilla entry in the changelog? just add something like "(#149637)" Ok, I see your point about making the copy and paste easier and switched back. Bugzilla # added to changelog and new RPMs built. Any objection to my adding the spec file and sources to cvs.fedora at this point? No objections. I will do a second review after that that. Dennis, Could you update to version 2.06? CPAN homepage: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Class-MethodMaker/ Diff between version 2.05 and 2.06: http://search.cpan.org/diff?from=Class-MethodMaker-2.05&to=Class-MethodMaker-2.06 jpo ping Checked in update to 2.06. I should be upgrading the FC-3 and devel branches, right? Also, is there a notification system that can send you email when certain CPAN modules are updated? *** *** Please don't ask for the package to be built without the approval email! *** Too late now - seth already built it. *** (In reply to comment #8) > Checked in update to 2.06. I should be upgrading the FC-3 and devel branches, > right? I believe so. > Also, is there a notification system that can send you email when > certain CPAN modules are updated? AFAIK there isn't. The CPAN FAQ has an entry about it CPAN FAQ: --- Where can I find the most recently uploaded Perl modules? http://www.cpan.org/misc/cpan-faq.html#Where_recent_modules --- PS - As a maintainer of an official CPAN mirror I receive a rsync log every day :) I also check http://search.cpan.org/recent (In reply to comment #9) > *** > *** Please don't ask for the package to be built without the approval email! > *** Too late now - seth already built it. > *** Sorry! I'm still learning the process. So, is this the general workflow? * request to upgrade package * upgrade checked into CVS * QA review of checkin sucess * approval email sent * build request filed failure * problem email sent (or comment in bugzilla) * back to CVS step Thanks for your patience. By the way, that's very cool that you're a maintainer of a CPAN mirror. Also, I didn't realize that the volume of changes on CPAN was so high. > (In reply to comment #9) > Sorry! I'm still learning the process. So, is this the general workflow? There is a draft description here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NewPackageProcess > Thanks for your patience. By the way, that's very cool that you're a maintainer > of a CPAN mirror. Also, I didn't realize that the volume of changes on CPAN was > so high. Just check the number of modules in the header of this page: http://www.cpan.org/modules/01modules.index.html (that number corresponds to 2000 tarballs (aprox.)) Dennis, I have sent the APPROVAL email. You can now close this ticket. jpo PS - In a future update you may consider deleting the empty line in the description. Thanks. By the way, I am still unclear on the process for how I do updates to this package. If 2.07 comes out tomorrow, do I open a new ticket? Is there QA review for each update to a package? I probably should be asking these question on fedora-extras. -- Dennis If the update is trivial you can just update the CVS files and request a new build. If the update is non-trivial feel free to ask for help to review it (just send an email to the fedora-extras mailling list). I forgot to tell you one thing: you should remove the old file(s) mentioned in the .cvsignore and source files (FC-3 and devel branches). In both files just leave the line refering to the latest version (2.06). Next time you upload a new source tarball, just use "make new-sources FILES=..." rather than "make upload FILES=...". The former wipes ".cvsignore" and "sources" files whereas the latter appends to them. Thanks Mike and Jose. .cvsignore and sources fixed. I'll use new-sources in the future. (In reply to comment #16) > Next time you upload a new source tarball, just use "make new-sources FILES=..." > rather than "make upload FILES=...". The former wipes ".cvsignore" and "sources" > files whereas the latter appends to them. Didn't know. Thanks Michael. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-Class-MethodMaker New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 cvs done. |