Spec URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.05-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Unicode::LineBreak performs Line Breaking Algorithm described in Unicode Standards Annex #14 [UAX #14]. East_Asian_Width informative properties defined by Annex #11 [UAX #11] will be concerned to determine breaking positions.
Taking.
I hadn't seen that this module depends on another package, not reviewed yet. Releasing and I'm sorry for the bugzilla spam.
Taking (yes, again).
=== KEY === - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241211 [!] Rpmlint output: perl-Unicode-LineBreak.x86_64: E: useless-provides perl(Unicode::LineBreak) perl-Unicode-LineBreak.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Unicode/LineBreak/LineBreak.so LineBreak.so()(64bit) perl-Unicode-LineBreak.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Unicode/LineBreak/LineBreak.so LineBreak.so()(64bit) perl-Unicode-LineBreak.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.05/GPL 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. I'm not sure where the perl(Unicode::LineBreak) provides is being generated. On a hunch, I'm guessing that it comes from lib/Unicode/LineBreak/Defaults.pm.sample which contains the line "package Unicode::LineBreak;". Try filtering that. The private-shared-object-provides can be removed by using the perl default filter. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl_default_filter for details. The incorrect fsf address is a bug that should be filed upstream but I won't block the review on this. [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Ignored on Fedora, used in EPEL [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPL+ or Artistic [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 87a22cce46d57d75601f64e8ab03ae66 Unicode-LineBreak-2011.05.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: rawhide.x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241211 [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [x] %check is present and the tests pass All tests successful. Files=18, Tests=134, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.07 usr 0.01 sys + 0.96 cusr 0.10 csys = 1.14 CPU) Result: PASS Please fix the filtering.
Thanks for the review Emmanuel. I've filed a bug upstream about the FSF address : https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=69999 I can't seem to get rid off of the useless-provides perl(Unicode::LineBreak). I'm probably doing something stupid with the filters, or may be the %filter_provides_in and %perl_default_filter don't stack up nicely, but here is a new package with better filtering anyway : http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak.spec http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.05-2.fc15.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #5) > > I can't seem to get rid off of the useless-provides perl(Unicode::LineBreak). After running "/usr/lib/rpm/rpmdeps -P" by hand on the buildroot (kids, don't try this at home, I am a trained professional), I've noted that both Unicode/LineBreak/Constants.pm and Unicode/LineBreak/Defaults.pm.sample provide "perl(Unicode::LineBreak)". It turns out that both files start with the line "package Unicode::LineBreak;". Xavier, you need to patch the code so that : * Unicode/LineBreak/Constants.pm provides "perl(Unicode::LineBreak::Constants)" * Unicode/LineBreak/Defaults.pm.sample provides "perl(Unicode::LineBreak::Defaults)" You then need to filter that last one out since your package doesn't actually provide it. > a new package with better filtering anyway : > http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak.spec Huh ? We're talking about provides and this spec file filters requires.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > > > I can't seem to get rid off of the useless-provides perl(Unicode::LineBreak). > > After running "/usr/lib/rpm/rpmdeps -P" by hand on the buildroot (kids, don't > try this at home, I am a trained professional), I've noted that both > Unicode/LineBreak/Constants.pm and Unicode/LineBreak/Defaults.pm.sample provide > "perl(Unicode::LineBreak)". It turns out that both files start with the line > "package Unicode::LineBreak;". > Great trick, I didn't know about it. Thanks :-) > Xavier, you need to patch the code so that : > > * Unicode/LineBreak/Constants.pm provides "perl(Unicode::LineBreak::Constants)" > * Unicode/LineBreak/Defaults.pm.sample provides > "perl(Unicode::LineBreak::Defaults)" > > You then need to filter that last one out since your package doesn't actually > provide it. > Will do, thanks for the help. > > a new package with better filtering anyway : > > http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak.spec > > Huh ? > We're talking about provides and this spec file filters requires. I was talking about the fedora and epel 6 filtering, but you're right the epel 5 filtering is most probably broken.
Xavier, is this package still moving forward ?
Sorry, I've not had enough time to fix the package as needed. I've not lost interest and I'll get back to it soon.
This one should be better : http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak.spec http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.05-3.fc15.src.rpm
Upstream found the patch to be unsuitable and rejected it. https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=71657 New version with stricter Provides filtering : http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak.spec http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.05-4.fc15.src.rpm
Xavier, you can remove both identical provides by filtering and add one only manually. The manual dependencies are added into package after filtering (at least on Fedora). However I do not think duplicate equivalent Provides are so big problem. They do not bother anything (except little more memory in dependency solvers) and this is bug in rpm which should be fixed sometimes. Also the %filter_from_provides does not work in conjunction with %perl_default_filter on F16 and newer. You need to use <https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/76>.
Emmanuel, Petr, based on the above comments, I'm not sure if I need to filter the duplicates provides or not. Also, the referenced ticket and draft confused me more than it helped and I need to study them again. I'll wait for an answer whether to filter the duplicate provide or not before changing the filtering to accommodate for all 3 variants (EL5; F14/EL6; F15+) Anyway, upstream released a new version : http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak.spec http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-1.fc15.src.rpm
Ok, so I think now I got the requires/provides filtering right. http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak.spec http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-2.fc15.src.rpm
=== KEY === - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3536100 [x] Rpmlint output: 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Ignored on Fedora, used in EPEL [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPL+ or Artistic [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 817d44a2ac08a13bd68af53e95e88ed2 Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: rawhide.x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3536100 [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [x] %check is present and the tests pass All tests successful. Files=18, Tests=5536, 2 wallclock secs ( 0.55 usr 0.04 sys + 2.12 cusr 0.11 csys = 2.82 CPU) Result: PASS Xavier, this is brilliant. APPROVED.
Thanks again for the review Emmanuel. This was a though but interesting one :-) New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Unicode-LineBreak Short Description: UAX #14 Unicode Line Breaking Algorithm Owners: xavierb Branches: f15 f16 el5 el6 InitialCC: perl-sig
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Unicode-LineBreak Short Description: UAX #14 Unicode Line Breaking Algorithm Owners: ppisar mmaslano psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig
(In reply to comment #17) > New Package SCM Request > ======================= > Package Name: perl-Unicode-LineBreak > Short Description: UAX #14 Unicode Line Breaking Algorithm > Owners: ppisar mmaslano psabata > Branches: > InitialCC: perl-sig Oops. Ignore it. I thought this is my package.
Petr, do you want to co-maintain some or all of the branches ?
No, thanks, I have a lot of my packages already. Actually I think this comment sequence could confuse SCM tools. Maybe you should append your original SCM request again.
(In reply to comment #20) > No, thanks, I have a lot of my packages already. > > Actually I think this comment sequence could confuse SCM tools. Maybe you > should append your original SCM request again. Yup, that what I was going to do but was waiting for your answer first. Thanks for the quick reply.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Unicode-LineBreak Short Description: UAX #14 Unicode Line Breaking Algorithm Owners: xavierb Branches: f15 f16 el5 el6 InitialCC: perl-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Imported and built for Rawhide, F16, F15, EL6 and EL5.
perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-2.fc16
perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-2.fc15
perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-2.el5
perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-2.el6
perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.