Bug 219086

Summary:	Review Request: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: functions
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Jose Pedro Oliveira <jose.p.oliveira.oss>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Parag AN(पराग) <panemade>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-12-11 21:20:28 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:
Bug Depends On:	219084
Bug Blocks:	163779, 219087

Description Jose Pedro Oliveira 2006-12-10 17:07:10 UTC

Spec URL:
ftp://perl.di.uminho.pt/pub/fedora/perl-Geo-Functions.spec

SRPM URL:
ftp://perl.di.uminho.pt/pub/fedora/perl-Geo-Functions-0.04-1.src.rpm

Description:
Standard Geo:: functions.

Note: the Geo::* modules are requirements of Net::GPSD

Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-12-11 05:26:00 UTC

I installed perl-Geo-Constants-0.05-1 then i built this package and installed
and i found now
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Geo
is owned by both packages.
I think this package's SPEC need to change line under %files
%{perl_vendorlib}/Geo/
to
%{perl_vendorlib}/Geo/Functions.pm

Comment 2 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-12-11 05:40:09 UTC

OR is that ok for perl packages?

Comment 3 Ralf Corsepius 2006-12-11 08:21:01 UTC

(In reply to comment #2)
> OR is that ok for perl packages?
It is a MUST. 

Perl module-package must own all dirs which are not owned by the base
perl-packages or a standard filesystem packages.

BTW: The same consideration also applies to other "module-like" systems.

Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-12-11 09:38:04 UTC

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > OR is that ok for perl packages?
> It is a MUST. 
> 
> Perl module-package must own all dirs which are not owned by the base
> perl-packages or a standard filesystem packages.
> 
> BTW: The same consideration also applies to other "module-like" systems.

Thanks for info. So perl modules, python modules MUST own all directories.

Comment 5 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-12-11 09:40:28 UTC

Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPMS.
+ source files match upstream.
32a4eb2ec009cec6c2175d9166ffd911  Geo-Functions-0.04.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
+ %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required.
+ %doc does not affect runtime.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ %check used
make test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0,
'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t
t/base....ok
All tests successful.
Files=1, Tests=31,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 cusr +  0.00 csys =  0.02 CPU)

+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Dose owns the directories it creates.
+ no scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Followed perl packaging guidelines.
APPROVED.

Comment 6 Jose Pedro Oliveira 2006-12-11 21:19:03 UTC

Thanks for the review.

Package imported and built for FC-5, FC-6, and devel.