Bug 469627

Including the tests as documentation causes an additional dependency on perl(Test::More).  You'll either need to filter this or not include the tests as documentation.

This package also provides:
  perl(Bar)
  perl(Foo)
which seems a bit odd.  These seem to come from the tests as well.

Hmm, interesting.  These weren't included as auto dep/provs on either of my F-9 or F-8 systems (or dist-f9 under koji), but with a scratch build under dist-f10/dist-f11 they do.

no unwanted prov/req:
dist-f9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=921115&name=build.log

picks up prov/req:
dist-f10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=921117&name=build.log
dist-f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=921119&name=build.log


Updated to filter bits from %_docdir:

Spec URL:
http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Class.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Class-0.05-2.fc9.src.rpm

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=921120

I see that you've been reviewing some packages lately, so I'll try to work through  your recent submissions.

It's sad to add all of that cruft to the specfile just so you can include some test files which are simply not even remotely useful as documentation.  Priorities, right?  But, hey, it's your package.

* source files match upstream:
   a80c5dc845a38867242edd2668db7ee8baa6126cd284b666ce2ed26fce30d5cd  
   MooseX-Types-Path-Class-0.05.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   perl(MooseX::Types::Path::Class) = 0.05
   perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Class = 0.05-2.fc10
  =
   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
   perl(MooseX::Types::Moose)
   perl(Path::Class)
   perl(strict)
   perl(warnings)

* %check is present and all tests pass:
   All tests successful.
   Files=8, Tests=37,  3 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr  0.02 sys +  1.03 cusr  0.11 
    csys =  1.18 CPU)

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

APPROVED

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Class
Short Description: A Path::Class type library for Moose
Owners: cweyl
Branches: F-8 F-9 F-10 devel
InitialCC: perl-sig

(In reply to comment #4)
> It's sad to add all of that cruft to the specfile just so you can include some
> test files which are simply not even remotely useful as documentation. 
> Priorities, right?  But, hey, it's your package.

Yeah, and consistency.  

I've been working on a feature proposal[1] to automagically package test suites, so I'm actually going to discontinue packaging them in %doc after these last few already-submitted package...

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FullyTestablePerl

cvs done.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Class
New Branches: el6
Owners: iarnell tremble

Git done (by process-git-requests).