Bug 237352 (perl-MooseX-Getopt)
Summary: | Review Request: perl-MooseX-Getopt - Moose role for processing command line options | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Chris Weyl <cweyl> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Bernard Johnson <bjohnson> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | iarnell |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | bjohnson:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-Getopt/ | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-05-04 15:32:09 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: |
Description
Chris Weyl
2007-04-20 23:16:49 UTC
It's possible that this is not a problem, but I'd sure look into it (Fedora 6): + /usr/bin/perl Build.PL installdirs=vendor - ERROR: Getopt::Long (2.35) is installed, but we need version >= 2.36 ERRORS/WARNINGS FOUND IN PREREQUISITES. You may wish to install the versions of the modules indicated above before proceeding with this installation If it can be /verified/ to work correctly with perl(Getopt::Long) = 2.35, then patch the Makefile.PL to change the required version. If it must have 2.36 or better, then maybe you only intend to build for newer versions of perl? If that is the case, a BR with the required version number should be used. Yeah -- I took a good look at this when putting the srpm together. It looks like, aside from bugfixes, the main changes to Getopt::Long 2.36 vs 2.35 is the addition of GetOptionsFromArray and GetOptionsFromString... A quick grep of the code turned up neither of these. In any case, I just filed a "seriously?" bug with upstream: http://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=26844 Package Review ============== Key: - = 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. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: FC-6 / i386 [x] Rpmlint output: None [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. [x] 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. MD5SUM this package : 250c71cde95ec48e9edcebacb80d0d44 MD5SUM upstream package: 250c71cde95ec48e9edcebacb80d0d44 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR: Arches excluded: Why: [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. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] 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 -rf %{buildroot} (or $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. [x] 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. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] 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. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: FC-6 / i386 [-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1. Patch Build.PL to require a lower version of perl(Getopt::Long) so that the testing won't complain. 2. Document why you are doing this including your bug report (Note that self tests pass otherwise) === Final Notes === 1. Be prepared to submit patches to the core perl package of every %dist that you build for if problems appear with using perl(Getopt::Long) = 2.35 (if it's because of a bug), or be prepared to patch around it in this package if needed. 2. Watch very carefully when you schedule the build to make sure that the self tests still pass on each %dist. If we are on the same page here, I'll approve the package. Gotcha. I'm not worried about the version of Getopt::Long; my own usage (not to mention the non-trivial test suite) both indicate to me that 2.35 is just fine. I'll give upstream a couple days to respond to the bug I filed with them, then move forward with this. (In reply to comment #4) > Gotcha. I'm not worried about the version of Getopt::Long; my own usage (not to > mention the non-trivial test suite) both indicate to me that 2.35 is just fine. > I'll give upstream a couple days to respond to the bug I filed with them, then > move forward with this. I think we both have a comfort zone about this, but I'm just stating for the record for what /might/ happen if we are both wrong :) Ping me when you are ready to proceed and we'll take it up from there. No problem :) The author just released 0.03, explicitly downgrading the Getopt::Long requirement in Build.PL -- I think we're safe to proceed here. If you don't mind, throw up a 0.03 srpm and I will mockbuild it and check the md5 sigs. SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-MooseX-Getopt-0.03-1.fc6.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-MooseX-Getopt.spec [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 4c925eaa9d071ff58b97ba26a5d29b18 MD5SUM upstream package: 4c925eaa9d071ff58b97ba26a5d29b18 All other issues went away :) ================ *** APPROVED *** ================ New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: perl-MooseX-Getopt Short Description: Moose role for processing command line options Owners: cweyl.edu Branches: FC-5, FC-6, devel InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list Imported and building... Thanks for the revieew! Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-MooseX-Getopt New Branches: el6 Owners: iarnell tremble InitialCC: perl-sig Git done (by process-git-requests). |