Bug 496606

rpmlint output is clean.

Provides are sane:
perl(Log::LogLite) = 0.82
perl(Log::NullLogLite) = 0.82
perl-Log-LogLite = 0.82-1.fc10

Requires:
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)  
perl(Carp)  
perl(IO::LockedFile) >= 0.21
perl(Log::LogLite)  
perl(strict)  
perl(vars)  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1


MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the  Licensing Guidelines. OK

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSFIX
- According to README:
   This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or 
   modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
- License of Perl is: (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic)
- Please contact upstream and ask them to clarify license.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK

MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Log
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Log/LogLite.pm
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Log/NullLogLite.pm
/usr/share/doc/perl-Log-LogLite-0.82
/usr/share/doc/perl-Log-LogLite-0.82/Changes
/usr/share/doc/perl-Log-LogLite-0.82/README
/usr/share/man/man3/Log::LogLite.3pm.gz
/usr/share/man/man3/Log::NullLogLite.3pm.gz

MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

Thanks for the review Jussi.

(In reply to comment #1) 
> MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
> NEEDSFIX
> - According to README:
>    This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or 
>    modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
> - License of Perl is: (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic)

The perl license is GPL+ or Artistic, according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#License_tag

Why do you say it should be (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic) ? I never saw that until today.

(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1) 
> > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
> > NEEDSFIX
> > - According to README:
> >    This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or 
> >    modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
> > - License of Perl is: (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic)
> 
> The perl license is GPL+ or Artistic, according to
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#License_tag
> 
> Why do you say it should be (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic) ? I
> never saw that until today.  

Okay, I missed the guideline on that one. Thanks.

rpm -qi perl states: License: (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic). Maybe it's a bug in the perl RPM...?


The package has been

APPROVED

Oh, ok, I understand now. The perl spec file says :
# Modules Tie::File and Getopt::Long are licenced under "GPLv2+ or Artistic,"
# we have to reflect that in the sub-package containing them.
License:        (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic)

perl itself is GPL+ or Artistic, only some sub-packages are GPLv2+ or Artistic, but this needs to be reflected on the package as a whole. But when a module is released under the same license as perl, then the correct license is GPL+ or Artistic.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Log-LogLite
Short Description: Create simple logs
Owners: xavierb
Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 EL-5
InitialCC: perl-sig

cvs done.

perl-Log-LogLite-0.82-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Log-LogLite-0.82-1.fc9

perl-Log-LogLite-0.82-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Log-LogLite-0.82-1.fc10

perl-Log-LogLite-0.82-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Log-LogLite-0.82-1.fc11

perl-Log-LogLite-0.82-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Log-LogLite-0.82-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Log-LogLite-0.82-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.