Description of problem: SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/perl-NOCpulse-Object/perl-NOCpulse-Object.spec SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/perl-NOCpulse-Object/perl-NOCpulse-Object-1.26.9-1.src.rpm Description: NOCpulse provides application, network, systems and transaction monitoring, coupled with a comprehensive reporting system including availability, historical and trending reports in an easy-to-use browser interface. This package contain an abstract PERL class that tries and fails to cover up the ugliness that is OO in Perl, amongst other things. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1132668
All is well, standard perl module. sha1sum matches: 8c6a8ee812515da3b740a3c7d1dca2a65e796b6f /tmp/perl-NOCpulse-Object-1.26.9.tar.gz License checks (GPLv2) Nice to have: ping upstream to include the license in the module themselves. And maybe change it to GPLv2+... APPROVED
Uhm, sorry. I take it back for a sec. Is it realy normal to overlap the provides and the requires? [wolfy@wolfy tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/wolfy/reports/perl-NOCpulse-Object/perl-NOCpulse-Object-1.26.9-1.fc11.noarch.rpm perl(NOCpulse::AbstractObjectRepository) perl(NOCpulse::BlockingDBMNamespace) perl(NOCpulse::BlockingFileNamespace) perl(NOCpulse::DBMObjectRepository) perl(NOCpulse::INIObjectRepository) perl(NOCpulse::MultiFileObjectRepository) perl(NOCpulse::NSObject) perl(NOCpulse::Namespace) perl(NOCpulse::Object) = 1.26 perl(NOCpulse::ObjectProxy) perl(NOCpulse::ObjectProxyServer) perl(NOCpulse::PersistentObject) perl(NOCpulse::SharedBlockingNamespace) perl-NOCpulse-Object = 1.26.9-1.fc11 [wolfy@wolfy tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/wolfy/reports/perl-NOCpulse-Object/perl-NOCpulse-Object-1.26.9-1.fc11.noarch.rpm perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(Carp) perl(Config::IniFiles) perl(Exporter) perl(Fcntl) perl(File::Basename) perl(FreezeThaw) perl(GDBM_File) perl(IO::Dir) perl(IO::File) perl(NOCpulse::AbstractObjectRepository) perl(NOCpulse::DBMObjectRepository) perl(NOCpulse::Debug) perl(NOCpulse::INIObjectRepository) perl(NOCpulse::MultiFileObjectRepository) perl(NOCpulse::Namespace) perl(NOCpulse::Object) perl(NOCpulse::SharedBlockingNamespace) perl(strict) perl(vars) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 Most of the requires are provided by the same package, and as far as I remember they should be filtered. Am I wrong here?
>Nice to have: ping upstream to include the license in the module themselves. I pinged myself and put it there. :) Updated: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/perl-NOCpulse-Object/perl-NOCpulse-Object.spec http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/perl-NOCpulse-Object/perl-NOCpulse-Object-1.26.10-1.src.rpm >And maybe change it to GPLv2+... Not possible. Sorry. >Is it realy normal to overlap the provides and the requires? Yes it is normal. Look on some other modules which has more then 2 modules and which require each other (e.g. perl-HTML-Parser). Nevertheless I did not put the requires and provides there. It is automatically generated by rpm. So if it is wrong (which I believe is not), then it is bug of rpmbuild.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Filtering_Requires:_and_Provides
Sorry I do not think it is bug. $ rpm -qR rpm ... config(rpm) = 4.4.2.3-9.el5 ... $ rpm -q --provides rpm config(rpm) = 4.4.2.3-9.el5 rpm = 4.4.2.3-9.el5 $ rpm -qR yum ... config(yum) = 3.2.19-18.el5 ... $ rpm -q --provides yum config(yum) = 3.2.19-18.el5 ... And dozens and dozens other packages. Overlapping is not a bug. If you do not agree, ask others on fedora-devel.
On the fedora-devel ML Ralf did not cry out loud, so package is APPROVED.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: perl-NOCpulse-Object Short Description: NOCpulse Object abstraction for Perl Owners: msuchy Branches: F-10, EL-4, EL-5 InitialCC: perl-sig
cvs done.