Bug 664910

Update:

Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Plack.spec
SRPM URL:
http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Plack-0.9959-2.fc15.src.rpm

*** Bug 575498 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Taking.

 - = 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 including the Perl specific items
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2694472

 [x] Rpmlint output:
perl-Plack.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US middleware -> middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight
perl-Plack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US middleware -> middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

 [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.
bb07fdb9a02d182bf21a8d569a0e18b9  Plack-0.9959.tar.gz

 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [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.
 [x] 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 consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [-] 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.
 [-] 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 ===
 [!] Latest version is packaged.
Plack 0.9960 came out on Christmas Day.

 [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: rawhide.x86-64
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2694472
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
 [?] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.
 [x] %check is present and the tests pass
All tests successful.
Files=112, Tests=810, 15 wallclock secs ( 0.25 usr  0.09 sys + 10.07 cusr  0.99 csys = 11.40 CPU)
Result: PASS

APPROVED.

Again, thanks for the review, Emmanuel!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Plack
Short Description: Perl Superglue for Web frameworks and Web Servers (PSGI toolkit)
Owners: corsepiu
Branches: f13 f14
InitialCC: perl-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

I am unable to build this package for f13 and f14,
because perl-Authen-Simple-Passwd is still missing from f13 and f14,
because I am unable to push these to f13 and f14, 
because they "This update has not yet met the minimum testing requirements defined in the Package Update Acceptance Criteria"

perl-Plack-0.9960-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Plack-0.9960-1.fc14

perl-Plack-0.9960-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Plack-0.9960-1.fc13

perl-Plack-0.9960-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update perl-Plack'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Plack-0.9960-1.fc13

perl-Plack-0.9960-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Plack-0.9960-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: perl-Plack
New Branches: el6
Owners: jpo
InitialCC: perl-sig

[perl-Dancer requirement chain - see bug 729504]

Git done (by process-git-requests).

(In reply to comment #13)
> Package Change Request
> ======================
> Package Name: perl-Plack
> New Branches: el6
> Owners: jpo
> InitialCC: perl-sig
> 
> [perl-Dancer requirement chain - see bug 729504]

The package has been branched but not built. Are there missing dependencies blocking it ? Can I help ?
The background is I'm going to try to build Request Tracker 4 for EPEL6 and this is one of the needed packages.

(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > Package Change Request
> > ======================
> > Package Name: perl-Plack
> > New Branches: el6
> > Owners: jpo
> > InitialCC: perl-sig
> > 
> > [perl-Dancer requirement chain - see bug 729504]
> 
> The package has been branched but not built. Are there missing dependencies
> blocking it ? Can I help ?

Yes and yes.

I've just opened a ticket where I will summarize the problems I encountered
during the attempt of pushing perl-Dancer for EPEL-6 (bug #838679).

> The background is I'm going to try to build Request Tracker 4 for EPEL6 and
> this is one of the needed packages.

That would be great to have in EPEL6 :)

/jpo