Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-IPC-Run3.spec SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-IPC-Run3-0.037-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: This module allows you to run a subprocess and redirect stdin, stdout, and/or stderr to files and perl data structures. It aims to satisfy 99% of the need for using system, qx, and open3 with a simple, extremely Perlish API and none of the bloat and rarely used features of IPC::Run. This package is a prerequisite of perl-Test-Script, which is a new prerequisite of perl-Test-Inline. Without perl-IPC-RUN3, upgrading/bug-fixing perl-Test-Inline is not possible.
rpmlint complains about the license: W: perl-IPC-Run3 invalid-license GPL W: perl-IPC-Run3 invalid-license Artistic "GPL" should be "GPL+" since the LICENSE file explicitly says "any version". I have no idea why rpmlint complains about Artistic but it should obviously be ignored here. Otherwise there are a couple of minor issues with this package; it would be nice if they were fixed or documented but I don't think are blockers: It looks like it has an executable (run3profpp) which could be installed to /usr/bin, but it's your decision as to whether to install it or not. One test is skipped because Test::Pod is not installed. Generally you'd want complete test coverage, but I don't think it's a blocker in this case as it's only some checks of the documentation. Still, I'd urge you to add the build dependency so the whole test suite can run. Since there are other tickets blocked on this one, I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix the license tag when you check in. Review: * source files match upstream: da7a829997fb8c2bf9389b016848aabb1ee946f6a57d69d492b74f31593392f2 IPC-Run3-0.037.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. X license field needs "GPL+" bit. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (would use perl(Test::Pod) for better test coverage) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly X rpmlint has a valid complaint (license tag) * final provides and requires are sane: perl(IPC::Run3) = 0.037 perl(IPC::Run3::ProfArrayBuffer) = 0.030 perl(IPC::Run3::ProfLogReader) = 0.030 perl(IPC::Run3::ProfLogger) = 0.030 perl(IPC::Run3::ProfPP) = 0.000 perl(IPC::Run3::ProfReporter) = 0.000 perl-IPC-Run3 = 0.037-1.fc8 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Temp) perl(IPC::Run3::ProfReporter) perl(POSIX) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful, 1 test skipped. Files=11, Tests=54, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.51 cusr + 0.42 csys = 0.93 CPU) The skipped test is due to a missing Test::Pod dependency and is not critical * 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; just change GPL to GPL+ in the license tag.
(In reply to comment #1) > I have no idea why rpmlint complains about Artistic but it should obviously > be ignored here. The issue is a bit hairy as Artistic alone is not an acceptable license for Fedora, but "GPL+ or Artistic" is. There will be an update to rpmlint pretty soon that should resolve this to some extent, but tibbs is correct, specifying "GPL+ or Artistic" and ignoring the warning from rpmlint is correct for now.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: perl-IPC-RUN3 Short Description: Run a subprocess in batch mode (a la system) Owners: rc0420203 Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
Hey, hold on, shouldn't the package name in CVS (and in the summary for this review request for tools that operate on them) be perl-IPC-Run3, not perl-IPC-RUN3?
(In reply to comment #5) > Hey, hold on, shouldn't the package name in CVS (and in the summary for this > review request for tools that operate on them) be perl-IPC-Run3, not perl-IPC-RUN3? You are right. tar ball's name is IPC-Run3, as well as the perl module is called IPC3/Run3.
In that case, for CVS admins: Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-IPC-RUN3 Please rename to perl-IPC-Run3.
CVS done.
(In reply to comment #8) > CVS done. Toshio, your renamer missed to alter the NAME inside of the <distro>/Makefile's. Don't know where else you and/or your pkgdb might have missed it. imported, built, closing.
Package Change Request ======================= Package Name: perl-IPC-Run3 New Branches: EL-5 Owners: rlandmann InitialCC: perl-sig I have discussed this with Ralf Corsépius, the package owner, and he is happy for me to maintain this branch.
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).