SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-GD-Barcode-1.15-1.fc6.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-GD-Barcode.spec Description: GD::Barcode is a subclass of GD and allows you to create barcode images with GD.
Are you really sure there's any point in packaging test.pl? BEGIN { $| = 1; print "1..1\n"; } END {print "not ok 1\n" unless $loaded;} use GD::Barcode; $loaded = 1; print "ok 1\n"; It doesn't seem to me to be especially useful as documentation. Other than that, there's not much to say. Review: * source files match upstream: 8c22b449079dce65946ec72acf6d3db78753045e7738c5101bc26932c9704967 GD-Barcode-1.15.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 (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(GD::Barcode) perl(GD::Barcode::COOP2of5) perl(GD::Barcode::Code39) perl(GD::Barcode::EAN13) perl(GD::Barcode::EAN8) perl(GD::Barcode::IATA2of5) perl(GD::Barcode::ITF) perl(GD::Barcode::Industrial2of5) perl(GD::Barcode::Matrix2of5) perl(GD::Barcode::NW7) perl(GD::Barcode::QRcode) perl(GD::Barcode::UPCA) perl(GD::Barcode::UPCE) perl-GD-Barcode = 1.15-1.fc7 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Exporter) perl(GD) perl(GD::Barcode) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and the single test passes. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: perl-GD-Barcode Short Description: Create barcode image with GD Owners: cweyl.edu Branches: FC-5, FC-6, F-7, devel InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list
Could I trouble you to answer the question I asked at the start of my review?
cvs done.
Imported and built. Thanks for the review!
(In reply to comment #3) > Could I trouble you to answer the question I asked at the start of my review? Sorry -- missed that :( So. I'm trying to adhere to a blanket "always package tests as %doc" rule on the theory that even if I don't find it useful, someone else might, and if I were that someone I'd far rather look in %doc than pull the source from CPAN. (A variant of the "one man's garbage" maxim, one might say.) However, you're right, it's difficult to imagine a situation in which this test could be useful. (Unless, say, someone were looking for the test suite as an entity, or wondering how it was tested; however that's really a "meta-use" I suppose.) I included it just to be consistent in the practice of including them. In this case I could be dissuaded from this; I'd probably generate and include a README.tests with something like "test suite worthless as documentation" inside just to keep people from wondering where it is, however.
(In reply to comment #6) > I included it just to be consistent in the practice of including them. This practice is unique to a subset of perl-* packages, and inconsistent with practically everything else.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > I included it just to be consistent in the practice of including them. > > This practice is unique to a subset of perl-* packages, and inconsistent with > practically everything else. Well, remember we're talking about them as (non-executable, with no dependencies) documentation. I hardly doubt it's "inconcistent with practically everything else" to include extra documentation in %doc.
Well, the interpretation of "extra documentation" is inconsistent with practically everything else then. Ever seen a package written in some other language include its test suite as %doc in the main package? Or a perl one packaged by someone else? I don't remember seeing one. Especially since you said in comment 6 that the reason you're including them is theoretical, and that you've seemingly started to apply it to all packages for consistency even when it's hard to come up with even a theoretical use case for them for some packages (are you even checking what gets included on case by case basis?), I find the practice very, very odd.
All things being equal, just because it's never been done before isn't a reason to not do it. There's always a first time for everything :) As a general rule, I've found test suites to make useful documentation and examples. I don't believe it's unreasonable that others may as well or that someone may find use in something I didn't. In any case, can we continue this discussion in fedora-perl, rather than continuing to append to a closed review ticket?
fedora-packaging would be more appropriate as this is not something specific to perl.