Hide Forgot
SPEC: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Data-Alias.spec SRPM: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Data-Alias-1.12-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Aliasing is the phenomenon where two different expressions actually refer to the same thing. Modifying one will modify the other, and if you take a reference to both, the two values are the same.
*** Bug 202876 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I've tested this on fedora 13 and 14 (x86_64). Both now allow a simple script to include a 'use Data::Alias' statement without breaking. Let me know if further testing is required, (I'm having issue with my rawhide vms currently, I can report back with those once they're up and running again), if you have a more complicated perl script to test with I can test that as well.
Package doesn't build on F-14 due to systemtap. I haven't looked into this yet. I suppose this package is intented for F-15 and newer.
I plan it only for F-15+, because we do not have systemtap enabled in F-14.
Package: perl-Data-Alias Version: 1.12 Release: 1.fc14 Sources: Data-Alias-1.12.tar.gz Patches: Data-Alias-systemtap.patch ---------- Package failed to build locally! Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-x86_64. Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-i386. Package successfully built in mock, fedora-15-x86_64. Package successfully built in mock, fedora-15-i386. Package failed to build in mock, fedora-14-x86_64. Package failed to build in mock, fedora-14-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) [ OK ] No errors reported by rpmlint [ NOTE ] 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 [ NOTE ] 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 [ OK ] Compiler flags honor Fedora defaults or are justified [ OK ] 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 [ OK ] 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 ] All files sections use defattr or justify otherwise [ 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 [ NOTE ] 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 [ OK ] 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: ------ 1. A cosmetic issue: The second line of the last changelog entry should use two spaces indentation. 2. Duplicate Requires: perl(Exporter), perl(DynaLoader) -- rpm finds them automatically; remove them from Requires. 3. ...on the other hand, they should be BuildRequired.
(In reply to comment #5) > NOTES: > ------ > 1. A cosmetic issue: The second line of the last changelog entry should use two > spaces indentation. Nitpicking but ok. > 2. Duplicate Requires: perl(Exporter), perl(DynaLoader) -- rpm finds them > automatically; remove them from Requires. Ok, will fix. > 3. ...on the other hand, they should be BuildRequired. Ok. Updated SRPM: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Data-Alias-1.12-1.fc14.src.rpm
--- Data-Alias/perl-Data-Alias.spec 2011-04-14 10:05:19.000000000 +0200 +++ Data-Alias2/perl-Data-Alias.spec 2011-04-20 15:11:17.000000000 +0200 @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ # http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=67430 Patch0: Data-Alias-systemtap.patch +BuildRequires: perl(DynaLoader) +BuildRequires: perl(Exporter) BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec) BuildRequires: perl(Filter::Util::Call) @@ -17,7 +19,6 @@ BuildRequires: perl(strict) BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) BuildRequires: perl(warnings) -Requires: perl(Exporter), perl(DynaLoader) Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) %{?perl_default_filter} @@ -49,7 +50,7 @@ %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) -%doc Changes README +%doc README Changes %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/* %{perl_vendorarch}/Data* %{_mandir}/man3/* @@ -57,7 +58,7 @@ %changelog * Thu Apr 14 2011 Marcela Mašláňová <mmaslano> 1.12-1 - Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.79 for new release. This package - was resurected for 5.12.x + was resurected for 5.12.x * Mon Dec 7 2009 Stepan Kasal <skasal> - 1.07-6 - rebuild against perl 5.10.1 -- Approving.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Data-Alias Short Description: Comprehensive set of aliasing operations Owners: mmaslano psabata ppisar Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig
This package already appears to exist in the package database, so I cannot process a new package request for it. If there's something special you would like for me to do, please describe it here and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag.
I re-reviewed this package, because it was marked as dead for a year. Now I created ticket for rel-engs to add it back to collection. I hope that's it and it will be working for rawhide. https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4684
Ticket 4684 is fixed, Data::Alias unblocked for f15+.
How come this package is orphaned again in Fedora and Deprecated in devel? It seems to be actively maintained upstream? I'm happy to take it unless there's a good reason why it's deprecated.
No idea, just take it. It looks like a mistake because source repository is not in dead-package state.
I would have taken it except for the fact that the devel branch is "Deprecated" and thus unavailable for taking. I'll re-open the rel-eng ticket and get it fixed.
After infrastructure will be back, someone from us should ask again for unblocking and un-deprecating. I don't know what they did to this package.
It's not blocked in koji (the package is in the Rawhide repo); it's just pkgdb that needs fixing, so I re-opened https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4684