Bug 672629

This part of your spec longs for an explanation:
> %{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=perl

Why not vendor_dir?

Because vendor directory is reserved for third-party packages. We are trying to allow administrators to overlay Perl modules with their own repositories.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Because vendor directory is reserved for third-party packages. We are trying to
> allow administrators to overlay Perl modules with their own repositories.

Upstream perl reference please.

If what you say applies, this would be a fundamential change in fedora's perl-packaging policy, because so far, it had been convention to consider "Fedora" == "vendor".

Consider all of your packages which are not installing to vendor_dir blocked.

This is Fedora specific issue, not upstr(In reply to comment #3)
> 
> Upstream perl reference please.
>
This is Fedora effort, not upstream one.
 
> If what you say applies, this would be a fundamential change in fedora's
> perl-packaging policy, because so far, it had been convention to consider
> "Fedora" == "vendor".
>
Convention, not a policy. The location is not standardized in Perl Packaging Guidelines. This has been decided by `perl' package owner (mmaslano) about half year ago.

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Because vendor directory is reserved for third-party packages. We are trying to
> > allow administrators to overlay Perl modules with their own repositories.
> 
> Upstream perl reference please.
> 
> If what you say applies, this would be a fundamential change in fedora's
> perl-packaging policy, because so far, it had been convention to consider
> "Fedora" == "vendor".
> 
> Consider all of your packages which are not installing to vendor_dir blocked.

It was convention, but in F-13 were paths cut and vendor has the same path as core perl. You didn't disagree with this change, which was similarly fundamental.

(In reply to comment #4)
> This is Fedora specific issue, not upstr(In reply to comment #3)
> > 
> > Upstream perl reference please.
> >
> This is Fedora effort, not upstream one.
> 
> > If what you say applies, this would be a fundamential change in fedora's
> > perl-packaging policy, because so far, it had been convention to consider
> > "Fedora" == "vendor".
> >
> Convention, not a policy. The location is not standardized in Perl Packaging
> Guidelines. This has been decided by `perl' package owner (mmaslano) about half
> year ago.

I wrote a proposal, not a policy. No-one commented it yet, I'd like to take this issue back to our mailing list to discuss.

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > This is Fedora specific issue, not upstr(In reply to comment #3)
> > > 
> > > Upstream perl reference please.
> > >
> > This is Fedora effort, not upstream one.
No. vendor_dir is an upstream perl invention => it must have a meaning.

> > > If what you say applies, this would be a fundamential change in fedora's
> > > perl-packaging policy, because so far, it had been convention to consider
> > > "Fedora" == "vendor".
> > >
> > Convention, not a policy.
Irrelevant - You are nit-picking on words.

What matters here, is considency of the Fedora distribution and simplicity of packaging.

> > The location is not standardized in Perl Packaging
> > Guidelines. This has been decided by `perl' package owner (mmaslano) about half
> > year ago.
Yes, you single-sidedly decided something very arguable and have caused Fedora's perl packaging to be inconsistent.

> I wrote a proposal, not a policy.
You did not write a proposal. You documented what you decided and implemented.

> No-one commented it yet, I'd like to take
> this issue back to our mailing list to discuss.
Provided what has happened, I an not sure such discussion makes much sense.

Just a note: This is the last not finished review perl-Task-Perl-Critic depends on.

Package installing into vendor can be found on following locators:

Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl-Critic-Tics/perl-Perl-Critic-Tics.spec
SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl-Critic-Tics/perl-Perl-Critic-Tics-0.006-1.fc16.src.rpm

It seems Ralf doesn't plan to finish this one.
Taking it.

Package: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics
Version: 0.006
Release: 1.fc16
Sources: Perl-Critic-Tics-0.006.tar.gz
Patches: 
----------
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-15-x86_64.
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-15-i386.
Package successfully built in koji, dist-rawhide.

MUST items:
[  OK  ] Package does NOT include pre-built binaries or libraries
[  OK  ] Spec file is legible and written in American english
[  OK  ] Package successfully builds on at least one supported primary architecture
[  --  ] All ExcludeArch tags valid, referencing proper bug reports
[  OK  ] Package obeys FHS (with _libexecdir and /srv exceptions)
[ NOTE ] No errors reported by rpmlint
[  OK  ] Changelog present and properly formatted
[  OK  ] Package does NOT include Packager, Vendor, Copyright or PreReq tags
[  OK  ] Source tags are working URLs and sources match upstream or justified otherwise
[ FAIL ] Requires correct or justified otherwise
[ FAIL ] BuildRequires correct or justified otherwise
[  OK  ] All file names are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[  OK  ] All plain text failes are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[  --  ] Large documentation files are located in doc subpackage
[  OK  ] All documentation prefixed with %doc
[  OK  ] Documentation is NOT executable
[  OK  ] No files in %doc are needed at run-time
[  --  ] Compiler flags honor Fedora defaults or are justified
[  --  ] Package generates useful debuginfo packages
[  --  ] Header files are placed in devel subpackage
[  --  ] Unversioned shared libraries are placed in devel subpackage
[  --  ] Pkgconfig files are placed in devel subpackage
[  --  ] Full-versioned Requires of the base package in subpackages
[  --  ] Package calls ldconfig in post and postun sections for all subpackages, if applicable
[  --  ] Static libraries are provided by static subpackage
[  OK  ] Package contains no static executables unless approved by FESCo
[  OK  ] Package does NOT bundle any system libraries
[  --  ] RPath not used for anything besides internal libraries
[  --  ] All config files are marked noreplace or justified otherwise
[  OK  ] No config files are located under /usr
[  --  ] Package contains a SystemV-compatible initscript
[  --  ] A GUI application installs a proper desktop file
[  --  ] All desktop files are installed by desktop-file-install or justified otherwise
[  OK  ] Package consistently uses macros
[  --  ] makeinstall macro is used only if make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} does NOT work
[  --  ] Macros in Summary and description are expandable at build-time
[  --  ] globals used in place of defines
[  --  ] Locales handled correctly -- package requires gettext and uses find_lang, if applicable
[  --  ] Scriptlets are sane
[  OK  ] Package is not relocatable unless justified
[  OK  ] Package contains only acceptable code or content
[  OK  ] Package owns all the files and directories it creates, installs and/or uses unless those are already owned by another package
[  OK  ] files sections do NOT contain duplicate files except for licenses
[  OK  ] Package does NOT cause any conflicts
[  OK  ] Package does NOT contain kernel modules
[  OK  ] Package does NOT bundle fonts or other general purpose data
[ FAIL ] Final Requires and Provides are sane

SHOULD items:
[  OK  ] The Summary does NOT end with a period
[  OK  ] Package does NOT include BuildRoot tag, clean section or buildroot removal in install section
[  OK  ] Package should preserve files timestamps
[  OK  ] Package does NOT explicitly BuildRequire bash, bzip2, coreutils, cpio, diffutils, fedora-release, findutils, gawk, gcc, gcc-c++, grep, gzip, info, make, patch, redhat-rpm-config, rpm-build, sed, shadow-utils, tar, unzip, util-linux-ng, which or xz
[  OK  ] Description does NOT consist of lines longer than 80 characters
[  OK  ] Package uses parallel make
[  --  ] In case of a web application, package installs date into /usr/share instead of /var/www
[  --  ] All patches have a comment or an upstream bug link
[  --  ] Package installs manpages for all executables
[  OK  ] Package contains check section and all tests pass
[  ??  ] Package works as expected

NOTES:
------
Perl::Critic::Tics::Violation::VirtualPos @ISA Perl::Critic::Violation.
Although this is provided by Perl::Critic, Tics should explicitly (Build)Require it.

Updated package is on the same URLs.

--- a/perl-Perl-Critic-Tics.spec
+++ b/perl-Perl-Critic-Tics.spec
@@ -11,11 +11,13 @@ BuildRequires:  perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
 BuildRequires:  perl(Perl::Critic) >= 1.07
 BuildRequires:  perl(Perl::Critic::TestUtils)
 BuildRequires:  perl(Perl::Critic::Utils)
+BuildRequires:  perl(Perl::Critic::Violation)
 # Tests only:
 BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More)
 Requires:       perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version))
 # Plug-in into perlcritics. Require it.
 Requires:       perl(Perl::Critic) >= 1.07
+Requires:       perl(Perl::Critic::Violation)
 
 %description
 The Perl-Critic-Tics distribution includes extra policies for Perl::Critic

--
Approving.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Perl-Critic-Tics 
Short Description: Policies for things that make me wince
Owners: ppisar mmaslano psabata
Branches: 
InitialCC: perl-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Thank you for the review and the repository.