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.fc15.src.rpm Description: The Perl-Critic-Tics distribution includes extra policies for Perl::Critic to address a fairly random assortment of things that make me (rjbs) wince.
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.