Bug 450553
| Summary: | Review Request: perl-TAP-Harness - Run Perl standard test scripts with statistics | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Marek Mahut <mmahut> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting, tcallawa |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | tcallawa:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/perl-TAP-Harness.spec | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-06-12 17:34:48 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
Lubomir Rintel
2008-06-09 15:37:03 UTC
Note that this is perl Test-Harness 3.10 package, stripped of Test::Harness compatibility module, because older version of Test::Harness is included in perl package (and perl-Test-Harness since Fedora 9). This means that packages that rely on Test::Harness interface won't be affected by this package, and only TAP::Harness is provided by this package. I am very strongly opposed to letting this package in and am leaning to reject it. What is the issue you are trying to solve? Ralf: The issue I am trying to solve is lack of TAP::Harness module in Fedora. Could you please name specific reasons against letting the package in Fedora? I don't see anything wrong with this package, it looks sane. approved. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: perl-TAP-Harness Short Description: Run Perl standard test scripts with statistics Owners: lkundrak Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-4 EL-5 Cvsextras Commits: yes (In reply to comment #4) > I don't see anything wrong with this package, it looks sane. approved. I do see many issues a) This package is not a CPAN distro, it's a submodule of Test::Harness b) This package doesn't install correctly - It wants to replace Test::Harness c) This package will collide with a future upgrade of Test::Harness You are outsmarting yourselves. DISAPPROVING. (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > > I don't see anything wrong with this package, it looks sane. approved. > I do see many issues > > a) This package is not a CPAN distro, it's a submodule of Test::Harness Could you please point me to the part of Perl packaging guidelines that you believe to be violated by this? > b) This package doesn't install correctly - It wants to replace Test::Harness How? I've double chcecked that this package don't have a single common provide with anything that is in RHEL5 with EPEL and Fedora 9. The SPEC file contains no Replaces nor Obsoletes tag. I also believe there is no file conflict. If you feel that there is a flaw in how I ensured to neither conflict with anything, nor replace anything please be more specific, e.g. provide a specific example. > c) This package will collide with a future upgrade of Test::Harness There is a mechanism to deal with this -- I was asked to file a bug against F10 perl, so that included Test-Harness will be upgraded to TAP::Harness based version 3.10. I will do so shortly. There will be no need for this package to ever make it into F10 Rawhide then. Only possible problem I can imagine would be a case where a hypothetical package would require perl-TAP-Harness instead of perl(TAP::Harness). In that case it is not a problem of this package, nor an unsolvable problem. > You are outsmarting yourselves. Thanks for being polite and concentrating on providing well-verified facts. > DISAPPROVING. Ralf? FWIW, I disagree entirely with Ralf. Setting review back to +. cvs done. Thanks for assistance, Tom; Thanks for review, Marek; Thanks for CVS, Kevin; and thanks for constructive criticism, Ralf. Imported and built. Followup in bug #451078. (In reply to comment #9) > FWIW, I disagree entirely with Ralf. Setting review back to +. OK, once more @RH's are abusing their positions. |