Spec URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Locale-Maketext-Simple/perl-Locale-Maketext-Simple.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Locale-Maketext-Simple-0.12-1.src.rpm Description: This module is a simple wrapper around Locale::Maketext::Lexicon, designed to alleviate the need of creating Language Classes for module authors.
RPM picks up no requirements for this package; shouldn't it at least require Locale::Maketext::Lexicon? I guess it's not strictly necessary but it seems pointless to use this package on its own with Locale::Maketext::Lexicon is already in extras.
-2 explicitly requires perl(Locale::Maketext::Lexicon). Thanks for the catch.
I guess I should have mentioned it is here: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Locale-Maketext-Simple-0.12-2.src.rpm
Builds fine in mock (development branch) and rpmnlint is silent. Issue: Owns %{perl_vendorlib}/Locale, which is also owned by a dependency. My understanding of the last MUST in the review guidelines is that this is a blocker. (Please feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding the point of that rule.) Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and conforms to the Perl template. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. It's not included separately in the package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it. * source files match upstream: 9a65312da2ae8d59f898151f9c044383 Locale-Maketext-Simple-0.12.tar.gz 9a65312da2ae8d59f898151f9c044383 Locale-Maketext-Simple-0.12.tar.gz-srpm * package builds in mock. * BuildRequires are proper. * final provides and requires are sane. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directory it creates. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is present and all tests pass. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. X The package owns %{perl_vendorlib}/Locale, which is also owned by a dependency.
(In reply to comment #4) > Builds fine in mock (development branch) and rpmnlint is silent. > > Issue: > Owns %{perl_vendorlib}/Locale, which is also owned by a dependency. My > understanding of the last MUST in the review guidelines is that this is a > blocker. (Please feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding the point of > that rule.) Corrected. All perl packages must own all directories below %{perl_vendorlib}, they use, otherwise they do not uninstall correctly and leave dirs behind. As previously mentioned by others in other threads the rule from the guidelines you mention above is badly phrased to say the least.
I don't recall any other discussion about this; if there's concensus that the rule is flawed then why haven't the guidelines been updated? It's stated in two places: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines I'd update them myself but given that you didn't supply any references I have no real idea what should replace the existing text. In the absense of any clear guidance I'm going to go ahead and approve the package and in the future only check for erroneous ownership of things like %{_bindir} or %{perl_vendirlib}. APPROVED
(In reply to comment #6) > I don't recall any other discussion about this; Though I don't have a reference to any thread discussing this issue wrt. perl packages at hand, this topic had been beaten to death and had popped up up at frequent intervals in perl dist reviews ;) > if there's concensus that the > rule is flawed then why haven't the guidelines been updated? IMO, yes. It's what most perl packages in FE do.
Package imported, branches created, builds requested, etc.