Bug 239164 (perl-Net-SinFP)

This fails to build for me in rawhide due to a missing build dependency on
perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker).  You also need build dependencies on Test::Pod and
Test::Pod::Coverage.  Having done that, rpmlint gives:
  W: perl-Net-SinFP unversioned-explicit-provides SinFP
which is something you'll have to filter.  cpanspec can do the filtering for you
with --filter-provides.

Also, the built package fails to install because nothing provides
perl(Net::Packet::Target).  I suppose Net::Package is expected to provide it,
but it doesn't.  Either that or rpm thinks this package needs it when it doesn't.

Ping?  This is blocked on perl-Net-Packet, which has been approved for some time
but not imported yet.  Is there any chance we could move forward soon?

perl-Net-Packet is in rawhide now, so this could be built, but the issues in
comment #1 still apply.

This has been needinfo for ages now; is anything ever going to happen with this
package?

Bringing this one back, 

Updates:

- Add missing BRs: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker), perl(Test::Pod),
perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) and perl(Net::Packet::Target) (see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=376321)
- Update License tag

http://sindrepb.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Net-SinFP/perl-Net-SinFP.spec
http://sindrepb.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Net-SinFP/perl-Net-SinFP-2.06-2.fc8.src.rpm

perl-Net-Packet-Target now in devel and updates for F-8 and F-7 are pending.
Shall we proceed?

Fails to build for me, due to a failure in %check:

t/01-use.............Can't locate Net/Packet/Consts.pm in @INC (@INC contains:...)

Looks like you need a build dependency on perl(Net::Packet).  Adding that gets
everything building; I'll assume it's there for the purposes of this review.

rpmlint says:
  perl-Net-SinFP.src:4: W: unversioned-explicit-provides SinFP
It would be best if you provided a version here:
  Provides: SinFP = %{version}-%{release}

Now I see a rather significant problem: the License.  The both README and
LICENSE in this package pretty clearly say "Artistic License" which would render
this package unacceptable for Fedora.  You have "GPL+ or Artistic" in your
License: tag; do you have some other source for this package being under the GPL?

BTW, if this really is just Artistic, perhaps upstream would be willing to
relicense under the Perl license or one of the revised/clarified Artistic
variants, all of which are acceptable for Fedora.

I wasn't aware that Artistic was unacceptable. Sent an email to the upstream
developer asking about the license and if he's willing to change it. Guess this
package has to wait a little bit longer.

Any progress?

Here's the response I got from upstream

"In short, no GPL for my modules. Concerning the upgrade to Artistic v2, 
I will see that when I will update my modules, because I will not 
issue an update just for a distribution issue.

CPAN is the way to install modules anyway."

Hilarious.  That comment belies such significant ignorance.

In any case, he doesn't actually have to issue updates; he just needs to provide
you with an email which permits us to use and distribute under the terms of
Artistic v2.  You can include that email in the package as documentation and
it's OK.

neat.

Any update?

I guess it's time for another monthly ping on this ticket.  Is there any chance
that this could move forward?

Looks like there's not been any progress.  Setting NEEDINFO; I'll close this
soon if nothing happens.