From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 2 23:15:21 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:15:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 178343] h2ph problem with gcc internal defines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602022315.k12NFL5V031322@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: h2ph problem with gcc internal defines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178343 ------- Additional Comments From jvdias at redhat.com 2006-02-02 18:15 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=124075) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=124075&action=view) Program to include cpp internal built-in macros in system _h2ph_pre.ph -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 2 23:22:02 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:22:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 178343] h2ph problem with gcc internal defines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602022322.k12NM1FZ032167@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: h2ph problem with gcc internal defines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178343 jvdias at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From jvdias at redhat.com 2006-02-02 18:21 EST ------- This problem is fixed with perl-5.8.8-1 in FC-5, with the patch sent upstream, which checks for the existence of cpp internal built-ins in Configure, and writes them to $Config{cppsymbols} so they are correctly written to _h2ph_pre.pl. This patch will be applied to subsequent perl releases for FC-4 and RHEL-4 , but this problem probably does not warrant a complete perl respin just to fix it. Meanwhile, simply run the 'patch_h2ph_pre.pl' script attached above, as root, and the system _h2ph_pre.ph (which gets included by every perl header file) will be patched to define cpp built-ins it does not already define . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 3 03:30:27 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:30:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 167354] Review Request: amavisd-new In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602030330.k133URDq006916@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: amavisd-new https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167354 steve at silug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From steve at silug.org 2006-02-02 22:30 EST ------- Please open a new bug if you can reproduce the problem with 2.3.3-5 when it comes out of the build system. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 3 05:46:07 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 00:46:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 175439] [FC4 Regression]: spamc doesn't use localhost by default In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602030546.k135k7LF000712@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: [FC4 Regression]: spamc doesn't use localhost by default https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175439 davej at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO_REPORTER ------- Additional Comments From davej at redhat.com 2006-02-03 00:46 EST ------- This is a mass-update to all currently open kernel bugs. A new kernel update has been released (Version: 2.6.15-1.1830_FC4) based upon a new upstream kernel release. Please retest against this new kernel, as a large number of patches go into each upstream release, possibly including changes that may address this problem. This bug has been placed in NEEDINFO_REPORTER state. Due to the large volume of inactive bugs in bugzilla, if this bug is still in this state in two weeks time, it will be closed. Should this bug still be relevant after this period, the reporter can reopen the bug at any time. Any other users on the Cc: list of this bug can request that the bug be reopened by adding a comment to the bug. If this bug is a problem preventing you from installing the release this version is filed against, please see bug 169613. Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 3 06:42:14 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 01:42:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 161785] spamassassin restart fails - functions bug? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602030642.k136gEoN015130@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: spamassassin restart fails - functions bug? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=161785 ------- Additional Comments From mitr at redhat.com 2006-02-03 01:42 EST ------- FWIW, killproc and other initscript functions now support -p to specify the PID file location, so the symlink hack should no longer be necessary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 4 22:38:58 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 17:38:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602042238.k14Mcwas013129@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-perl-devel- | |list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 4 22:41:58 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 17:41:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602042241.k14MfwlQ013564@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Platform|All |noarch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 5 00:50:12 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 19:50:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602050050.k150oCHI027727@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |tibbs at math.uh.edu -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 5 01:27:58 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 20:27:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602050127.k151Rwp2031615@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-02-04 20:27 EST ------- Generally you should supply a src.rpm; it makes the review process a bit easier and some of the review items require having it. My rpmlint complains: W: perl-Font-TTF wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/perl-Font-TTF-0.37/README.TXT and indeed README.TXT has CRLF endings. However, there are several packages which include documentation files with DOS-style line endings so I don't believe this is a blocker. Fix it up if you like. Other issues: I can't review spec file naming. I can't review the source used to build the SRPM as none was provided. BuildRequires: perl is not permitted. The license does not seem to be GPL. I see only: The Perl TTF module is licensed under the Perl Artistic License. I don't understand this comment in the %files section: # For arch-specific packages: vendorarch I can't install the resulting RPM: error: Failed dependencies: perl(Win32) is needed by perl-Font-TTF-0.37-1.noarch perl(Win32::Registry) is needed by perl-Font-TTF-0.37-1.noarch I believe this is the result of lib/Font/TTF/Win32.pm. I'm not sure what would be best to do here. You can fix it with a quick rm %{buildroot}/%{perl_vendorlib}/Font/TTF/Win32.pm in the %install section but I'm not completely sure if that's acceptable. Another solution would be to postprocess the output of the dependency generator, but that's rather unpalatable as well (and more complicated than just deleting the file). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 5 08:42:43 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 03:42:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602050842.k158ghr0015690@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2006-02-05 03:42 EST ------- Nicolas, would you please provide an SRPM? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 5 10:33:09 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 05:33:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602051033.k15AX92A007467@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 ------- Additional Comments From Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net 2006-02-05 05:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Generally you should supply a src.rpm; it makes the review process a bit easier > and some of the review items require having it. I know, it's just that my isp changed it's upload rules and I couldn't locate the new ones yesterday > My rpmlint complains: > W: perl-Font-TTF wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/perl-Font-TTF-0.37/README.TXT > > and indeed README.TXT has CRLF endings. However, there are several packages > which include documentation files with DOS-style line endings so I don't believe > this is a blocker. Fix it up if you like. It's as you want, the rpmlint in rawhide does not care > Other issues: > I can't review spec file naming. > I can't review the source used to build the SRPM as none was provided. > BuildRequires: perl is not permitted. This line is straight from the fedora-rpmdevtools-1.4-2.fc5 perl template. Is the template wrong ? > The license does not seem to be GPL. I see only: > The Perl TTF module is licensed under the Perl Artistic License. Ok, my mistake, copied the licensing in dries rpm without checking > I don't understand this comment in the %files section: > # For arch-specific packages: vendorarch This is a bit of fedora-rpmdevtools-1.4-2.fc5 perl template I should have snipped > I can't install the resulting RPM: > > error: Failed dependencies: > perl(Win32) is needed by perl-Font-TTF-0.37-1.noarch > perl(Win32::Registry) is needed by perl-Font-TTF-0.37-1.noarch > > I believe this is the result of lib/Font/TTF/Win32.pm. I'm not sure what would > be best to do here. You can fix it with a quick > > rm %{buildroot}/%{perl_vendorlib}/Font/TTF/Win32.pm > > in the %install section but I'm not completely sure if that's acceptable. I agree on this, will do > Another solution would be to postprocess the output of the dependency generator, > but that's rather unpalatable as well (and more complicated than just deleting > the file). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 5 10:42:36 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 05:42:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602051042.k15AgaIM008522@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 ------- Additional Comments From Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net 2006-02-05 05:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Nicolas, would you please provide an SRPM? Since the SRPM is only 148 kiB I'll attach it too -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 5 10:44:30 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 05:44:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602051044.k15AiU5h008820@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 ------- Additional Comments From Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net 2006-02-05 05:44 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=124197) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=124197&action=view) proposed srpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 5 10:45:22 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 05:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602051045.k15AjM9C008886@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #124187|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net 2006-02-05 05:45 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=124198) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=124198&action=view) Cleaned-up spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 5 11:14:31 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 06:14:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602051114.k15BEVk9011818@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2006-02-05 06:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > BuildRequires: perl is not permitted. > This line is straight from the fedora-rpmdevtools-1.4-2.fc5 perl template. Is > the template wrong ? Mileages vary. IMO not and rather the MUST in the guidelines is a bit over the top in this case. See bug 179426. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 5 15:26:26 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:26:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602051526.k15FQQwf007508@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-02-05 10:26 EST ------- I agree about the BuildRequires: perl thing, and indeed in another review I said it was not a blocker (which was my mistake) but then I noticed the MUST. I'm not sure what to do here; I think the MUST is unnecessary and conflicts with language in the the packaging guidelines: "There is no need to include the following packages or their dependencies as BuildRequires because they would occur too often." which doesn't sound very MUST like. We can't just ignore the guidelines, so I suggest removing the BuildRequires: while this gets worked out on the mailing list. Also, could you comment the %exclude you added, so it's obvious why this is required. I'll finish off the review in a few minutes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 5 17:33:08 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:33:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602051733.k15HX8W1022310@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 ------- Additional Comments From Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net 2006-02-05 12:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > We can't just ignore the guidelines, so I suggest removing the BuildRequires: > while this gets worked out on the mailing list. I strongly suspect most FE packages follow the official templates, so leaving it might be the more conservative option IMHO. But I'll follow the reviewer position ;) > Also, could you comment the %exclude you added, so it's obvious why this is > required. > > I'll finish off the review in a few minutes. Ok, new spec/srpm in 30s -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 5 17:40:50 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:40:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602051740.k15Heo4G023375@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #124198|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net 2006-02-05 12:40 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=124215) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=124215&action=view) spec file take #3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 5 17:41:44 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:41:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602051741.k15Hfijc023482@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #124197|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net 2006-02-05 12:41 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=124216) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=124216&action=view) srpm take #3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 5 18:09:21 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 13:09:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180034] Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602051809.k15I9Lhq026549@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Font-TTF (part of the dejavu-fonts toolchain) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180034 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-02-05 13:09 EST ------- Cool. OK, everything's looking good: No rpmlint blockers, just the end-of-line warning. Package meets naming and packaging guidelines. License is acceptable and matches License: tag. Specfile is properly named, legible, well-written, well-commented and uses macros consistently. Source file matches upstream. Package builds and installs on FC3 and FC4. BuildRequires: is proper. Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 9 06:13:26 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 01:13:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180591] New: bad URL in perl-Net-Telnet package description Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180591 Summary: bad URL in perl-Net-Telnet package description Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: i386 URL: http://www.cpan.org/~jrogers/Net-Telnet- 3.03/lib/Net/Telnet.pm OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: perl-Net-Telnet AssignedTo: jbrassow at redhat.com ReportedBy: petrosyan at gmail.com CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com >From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060202 Fedora/1.5.0.1-2 Firefox/1.5.0.1 Description of problem: bad URL: http://www.cpan.org/~jrogers/Net-Telnet-3.03/lib/Net/Telnet.pm in perl-Net-Telnet package description the correct URL seems to be http://search.cpan.org/src/JROGERS/Net-Telnet-3.03/lib/Net/ Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): perl-Net-Telnet-0-3.03-4.2 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: rpm -qi perl-Net-Telnet Additional info: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 9 10:46:46 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 05:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180591] bad URL in perl-Net-Telnet package description In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602091046.k19Akkn5005594@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: bad URL in perl-Net-Telnet package description https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180591 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2006-02-09 05:46 EST ------- The following URL http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-Telnet/ would be better choice as it doesn't mention the maintainer or the module version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From jpo at di.uminho.pt Thu Feb 9 20:42:06 2006 From: jpo at di.uminho.pt (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Pedro_Oliveira?=) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:42:06 +0000 Subject: Please ignore - testing new mailling list signature Message-ID: <43EBA91E.8030200@di.uminho.pt> Sorry for the noise. Adding link to the Perl SIG wiki page. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 9 22:06:54 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 179271] spamd: SPF: lookup failed: Can't locate object method "type" via package "Net::DNS::RR::TXT" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602092206.k19M6s5X006650@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: spamd: SPF: lookup failed: Can't locate object method "type" via package "Net::DNS::RR::TXT" https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179271 ------- Additional Comments From jvdias at redhat.com 2006-02-09 17:06 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=124461) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=124461&action=view) spamassassin-3.0.4-2.fc4's /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SPF.pm modified to log more debug info on SPF query failures I think these SPF lookup failures are occuring when the DNS lookups timeout / fail, possibly due to intermittent loss of network connectivity. Here's an SPF.pm that will log more info when these failures occur that should give us a better idea of their cause. Please copy the attached SPF.pm to /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SPF.pm , restart spamd, and then grep for the log messages it might output: # egrep '(SPF: failed query:)|(SPF: DNS connectivity)' /var/log/messages and append such messages to this bug report if found - thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 10 14:07:39 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:07:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180767] Invalid rpm group: Applications/CPAN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602101407.k1AE7dgL017232@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Invalid rpm group: Applications/CPAN https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180767 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-perl-devel- | |list at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2006-02-10 09:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Fell free to provide a spec file patch. Or even takeover this package... > I don't want to maintain any perl modules I am already maintaining too many packages and am not really interested taking over this particular package. Anyway, I just just had a deeper look into this package and found it to be really mis-packaged. Besides the nitpicking rpmlint complains about, the most critical bug is this package tagged "noarch", while it actually (unless I'm missing something) should be "arched". I am having a deeper look into it and will try to come up with a patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 10 15:07:20 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:07:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180767] Invalid rpm group: Applications/CPAN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602101507.k1AF7KSe027212@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Invalid rpm group: Applications/CPAN https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180767 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2006-02-10 10:07 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=124497) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=124497&action=view) Proposed patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 13 09:05:53 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 04:05:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180767] Invalid rpm group: Applications/CPAN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602130905.k1D95rYW024522@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Invalid rpm group: Applications/CPAN https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180767 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2006-02-13 04:05 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Fell free to provide a spec file patch. Or even takeover this package... I don't > want to maintain any perl modules, but needed this one for dvd::rip. I've updated the spec in cvs and had let it rebuild on devel/rawhide. Could you try the fc5-spec with dvd::rip on FC4? If it doesn't break (I can't test it), I'd go ahead an apply the FC5 spec to FC4 and FC3. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 15 17:44:18 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:44:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180591] bad URL in perl-Net-Telnet package description In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602151744.k1FHiI5r013772@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: bad URL in perl-Net-Telnet package description https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180591 jbrassow at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jbrassow at redhat.com |cfeist at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 15 17:46:58 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:46:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180591] bad URL in perl-Net-Telnet package description In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602151746.k1FHkw4G014257@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: bad URL in perl-Net-Telnet package description https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180591 jvdias at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|cfeist at redhat.com |jbrassow at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 15 17:49:07 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:49:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180591] bad URL in perl-Net-Telnet package description In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602151749.k1FHn7Qh014696@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: bad URL in perl-Net-Telnet package description https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180591 jvdias at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jbrassow at redhat.com |jvdias at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From jvdias at redhat.com 2006-02-15 12:48 EST ------- Sorry, I updated perl-Net-Telnet for the mass rebuild recently, I'll update the problematic URL now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 15 17:57:22 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:57:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180591] bad URL in perl-Net-Telnet package description In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602151757.k1FHvMBs016301@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: bad URL in perl-Net-Telnet package description https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180591 jvdias at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From jvdias at redhat.com 2006-02-15 12:57 EST ------- now fixed with perl-Net-Telnet-3.03-4.3 in Rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 19 08:40:56 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 03:40:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 182023] New: error about missing Mail/SPF/Query.pm on each mail processed. Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182023 Summary: error about missing Mail/SPF/Query.pm on each mail processed. Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: spamassassin AssignedTo: wtogami at redhat.com ReportedBy: davej at redhat.com CC: fedora-perl-devel- list at redhat.com,felicity at kluge.net,jm at jmason.org,parkerm @pobox.com,reg+redhat at sidney.com,wtogami at redhat.com each time spamc is invoked, I get this logged in maillog.. Feb 19 03:44:17 nwo spamd[20918]: Can't locate Mail/SPF/Query.pm in @INC (@INC contains: ../lib /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.4/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.3/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.4 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.3 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.4/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor Sure enough, there's no Query.pm in any of those (or anywhere in /usr) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 19 10:06:09 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 05:06:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 182023] error about missing Mail/SPF/Query.pm on each mail processed. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602191006.k1JA697E028676@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: error about missing Mail/SPF/Query.pm on each mail processed. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182023 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2006-02-19 05:05 EST ------- try: # yum install perl-Mail-SPF-Query -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 19 10:43:34 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 05:43:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 182023] error about missing Mail/SPF/Query.pm on each mail processed. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602191043.k1JAhYLW000733@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: error about missing Mail/SPF/Query.pm on each mail processed. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182023 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO| |150222, 171491 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2006-02-19 05:43 EST ------- http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4659 http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4631 If 3.1.1 isn't released before FC5, then I have to incorporate patches like this into our package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From rc040203 at freenet.de Sun Feb 19 12:46:00 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:46:00 +0100 Subject: [Bug 182023] New: error about missing Mail/SPF/Query.pm on each mail processed. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1140353160.21764.546.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 03:40 -0500, bugzilla at redhat.com wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182023 > each time spamc is invoked, I get this logged in maillog.. > > Feb 19 03:44:17 nwo spamd[20918]: Can't locate Mail/SPF/Query.pm in @INC (@INC > contains: ../lib /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 Not related to this particular problem: Does anybody know where this "../lib" above stems from? Depending on where this stems from, I would be inclined to call it a severe bug and would be a likely candidate for some bizarre issues I am facing with FC4 and have been hunting in vain so far. Ralf From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 20 17:19:01 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:19:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 179271] spamd: SPF: lookup failed: Can't locate object method "type" via package "Net::DNS::RR::TXT" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602201719.k1KHJ1BB002449@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: spamd: SPF: lookup failed: Can't locate object method "type" via package "Net::DNS::RR::TXT" https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179271 jvdias at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG ------- Additional Comments From jvdias at redhat.com 2006-02-20 12:18 EST ------- I've now been running spamassassin with the Mail::SPF plugin installed on my inbox on an FC-4 system with all the latest updates installed, without a single occurrence of this problem. I think this problem is simply due to intermittent DNS network service failures occurring leading to a timeout and the alarm signal handler firing, failing the DNS query. Hence, this is being closed as NOTABUG. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 20 23:37:32 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:37:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 174373] Perl program crashes on end if prepared statements are used In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602202337.k1KNbW3M025373@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Perl program crashes on end if prepared statements are used https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174373 jvdias at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG ------- Additional Comments From jvdias at redhat.com 2006-02-20 18:37 EST ------- I still really cannot reproduce this bug, using the following program, modified as you suggested: --- #!/usr/bin/perl use DBI; use DBD::Pg; ($host,$db,$user)=($ARGV[1],$ARGV[2]); $dbh = DBI->connect('dbi:Pg:dbname=$db;host=$host;', $user, '', { pg_server_prepare => 1 } ) || die("can't connect: $! $?"); my $stmt; sub prepare_stmt { $stmt = $dbh->prepare("SELECT * FROM t WHERE c = ?"); } $stmt->{pg_server_prepare}=1; prepare_stmt(); my $rv = $stmt->execute("A"); while (my $data = $stmt->fetchrow_hashref) { print join(" ",values %{$data}),"\n"; }; --- NOTE: The '$stmt->{pg_server_prepare}=1;' statement has no effect. The program above runs without errors and exits with 0 exit status. Concluding that this is 'NOTABUG'. If you can still reproduce this problem, please append the complete perl program that causes the bug, and a pg_dump(1) of the database the program connects to when the problem occurs, and re-open this bug - thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From jpo at di.uminho.pt Thu Feb 23 16:14:29 2006 From: jpo at di.uminho.pt (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Pedro_Oliveira?=) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:14:29 +0000 Subject: Sub::Uplevel and perl 5.8.8 Message-ID: <43FDDF65.9030806@di.uminho.pt> Hi, The perl module Sub::Uplevel is generating warnings under perl 5.8.8 (this didn't happened with perl 5.8.6 and 5.8.7). I believe something related to caller() must have changed in perl 5.8.8 but I am unable to pinpoint the source of the problem (caller appears to be returning undef in a new situation). These warnings are causing major problems in other packages: * perl-Test-Warn fails to build (test problems) * perl-Test-Exception produces a couple of warnings during the test suite execution * perl-WWW-Mechanize fails to build (test failures) I have a patch already in CVS (perl-Sub-Uplevel devel branch) but I would appreciate feedback before releasing a new build of the perl-Sub-Uplevel. Additional information is available in ticket #182488 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182488) Thanks in advance, jpo -- Jos? Pedro Oliveira * mailto: jpo at di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo * * gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B * -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From rgarciasuarez at gmail.com Fri Feb 24 10:06:39 2006 From: rgarciasuarez at gmail.com (Rafael Garcia-Suarez) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:06:39 +0100 Subject: Sub::Uplevel and perl 5.8.8 In-Reply-To: <43FDDF65.9030806@di.uminho.pt> References: <43FDDF65.9030806@di.uminho.pt> Message-ID: On 2/23/06, Jos? Pedro Oliveira wrote: > The perl module Sub::Uplevel is generating warnings under perl 5.8.8 > (this didn't happened with perl 5.8.6 and 5.8.7). I believe something > related to caller() must have changed in perl 5.8.8 but I am unable to > pinpoint the source of the problem (caller appears to be returning undef > in a new situation). This is likely to be caused by this bug fix : http://search.cpan.org/dist/perl/pod/perl588delta.pod#no_warnings_%27category%27_works_correctly_with_-w From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 26 11:14:44 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 06:14:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183099] Provides: perl(main) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602261114.k1QBEiW0003711@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Provides: perl(main) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183099 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-perl-devel- | |list at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2006-02-26 06:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Shouldn't that be handled by the requires perl script? Yes, this is a bug in rpm ... > It should know that this is not the perl RPM. > If it doesn't it should be patched. Agreed, but this doesn't help us NOW. Your package provides bogus provides, so you can't avoid working around this issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 26 12:04:01 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:04:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183099] Provides: perl(main) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602261204.k1QC41ZP011360@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Provides: perl(main) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183099 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2006-02-26 07:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Shouldn't that be handled by the requires perl script? > Yes, this is a bug in rpm ... ...which is fixed in rpm >= 4.4.2-12. A simple rebuild with such a version will fix it, and in fact Sprog-0.14-7.fc5 no longer provides perl(main). $ rpm -q Sprog Sprog-0.14-7.fc5 $ rpm -q --provides Sprog | grep main $ > Agreed, but this doesn't help us NOW. It does for devel. > Your package provides bogus provides, so > you can't avoid working around this issue. This workaround is needed in <= FC4 only. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 26 12:09:04 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:09:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183099] Provides: perl(main) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602261209.k1QC948s012147@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Provides: perl(main) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183099 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2006-02-26 07:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > Shouldn't that be handled by the requires perl script? > > Yes, this is a bug in rpm ... > > Your package provides bogus provides, so > > you can't avoid working around this issue. > > This workaround is needed in <= FC4 only. ... or somebody will have to fix rpm for <= FC4, too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 26 14:44:56 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:44:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183099] Provides: perl(main) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602261444.k1QEiuZi004817@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Provides: perl(main) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183099 ------- Additional Comments From ghenry at suretecsystems.com 2006-02-26 09:44 EST ------- I'll do the workaround for FC-4 then ;-) I'll read perl-HTML-Tree, like Ralf suggested. Thanks, Gavin. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 26 15:02:23 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:02:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183099] Provides: perl(main) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602261502.k1QF2NkQ007341@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Provides: perl(main) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183099 ------- Additional Comments From ghenry at suretecsystems.com 2006-02-26 10:02 EST ------- I can't find the perl-HTML-Tree SRPM in either the FC-4 tree or Developement? Any pointers? Gavin. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 26 15:09:33 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:09:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183099] Provides: perl(main) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602261509.k1QF9XJt008360@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Provides: perl(main) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183099 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2006-02-26 10:09 EST ------- It's in Extras. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 26 15:29:00 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 135162] Strange error message when connecting to Bugzilla xml-rpc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602261529.k1QFT0Nr011679@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Strange error message when connecting to Bugzilla xml-rpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=135162 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2006-02-26 10:28 EST ------- Seems to work properly now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 26 15:44:59 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:44:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183099] Provides: perl(main) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602261544.k1QFixae014724@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Provides: perl(main) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183099 ------- Additional Comments From ghenry at suretecsystems.com 2006-02-26 10:44 EST ------- Doh! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 26 23:09:53 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:09:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183099] Provides: perl(main) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602262309.k1QN9rHH023564@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Provides: perl(main) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183099 ------- Additional Comments From ghenry at suretecsystems.com 2006-02-26 18:09 EST ------- Done and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From jpo at di.uminho.pt Mon Feb 27 17:37:24 2006 From: jpo at di.uminho.pt (Jose Pedro Oliveira) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:37:24 -0000 (WET) Subject: Sub::Uplevel and perl 5.8.8 In-Reply-To: References: <43FDDF65.9030806@di.uminho.pt> Message-ID: <34673.192.168.82.254.1141061844.squirrel@webmail.lsd.di.uminho.pt> Rafael, > On 2/23/06, Jos? Pedro Oliveira wrote: >> The perl module Sub::Uplevel is generating warnings under perl 5.8.8 >> (this didn't happened with perl 5.8.6 and 5.8.7). I believe something >> related to caller() must have changed in perl 5.8.8 but I am unable to >> pinpoint the source of the problem (caller appears to be returning undef >> in a new situation). > > This is likely to be caused by this bug fix : > http://search.cpan.org/dist/perl/pod/perl588delta.pod#no_warnings_%27category%27_works_correctly_with_-w > Thanks for the information. jpo -- Jos? Pedro Oliveira * mailto: jpo at di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/~jpo * * gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B * From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 27 18:22:00 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:22:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183028] Review Request: perl-Spiffy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602271822.k1RIM0Pb002481@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Spiffy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183028 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-perl-devel- | |list at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2006-02-27 13:21 EST ------- (In reply to comment #19) > http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Spiffy-0.30-2.src.rpm > > * Mon Feb 27 2006 Steven Pritchard 0.30-2 > - Drop explicit Provides: mixin. > - Add dummy mixin.pm. With all due respect, what have you been drinking? One crazyness replacing the next? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 27 19:52:25 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:52:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183028] Review Request: perl-Spiffy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602271952.k1RJqPjZ026425@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Spiffy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183028 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-02-27 14:52 EST ------- Look, he's trying to come up with a solution that doesn't involve hacking 130 downstream packages. If you don't want to be constructive then please just don't post. Steve, I'm working on filtering the requires and it's really simple; you just need six lines in %prep. Looking through what other packages in Core and Extras do, I see that this is really very common: cat << EOF > %{name}-req #!/bin/sh %{__perl_requires} $* | sed -e '/perl(mixin)/d' EOF %define __perl_requires %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}-req chmod +x %{__perl_requires} (You can also reference an external script as %{SOURCE99} if you find emitting it from the spec distasteful.) Finally, I was hacking on the packages and noticed that Spiffy also provides perl(DB), which I think is broken. (It overrides the super() method in the DB package, and so it has a "package DB" statement which RPM turns into Provides: perl(DB).) This has the capacity to break other things, so Spiffy is definitely going to need a __perl_provides override as well: cat < %{name}-prov #!/bin/sh %{__perl_provides} $* | sed -e '/perl(DB)/d' XXX %define __perl_provides %{_builddir}/Spiffy-%{version}/%{name}-prov chmod +x %{__perl_provides} With this, things are working cleanly. I know it's a pain to have to do this in all of the modules, but I think this is going to be the only way to move forward. I will try to get these overrides into the Perl template and I suggest that they get into cpanspec as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 27 20:16:49 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183028] Review Request: perl-Spiffy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602272016.k1RKGnJa031435@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Spiffy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183028 ------- Additional Comments From steve at silug.org 2006-02-27 15:16 EST ------- I missed the perl(DB) thing. That's fixed in -3. http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Spiffy-0.30-3.src.rpm I still *really* don't like the idea of modifying (potentially) nearly every Kwiki package to filter out the perl(mixin) thing, especially since there's no easy way to tell if the dependency will get picked up ahead of time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 27 22:10:18 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183028] Review Request: perl-Spiffy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602272210.k1RMAIMT002717@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Spiffy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183028 ------- Additional Comments From steve at silug.org 2006-02-27 17:10 EST ------- Given that there is a real mixin.pm, I'm checking now to see if Spiffy is a drop-in replacement for it. If it is, we *should* be able to include a fake mixin.pm that just does "use Spiffy". Otherwise, I guess I have to filter the perl(mixin) dependency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 27 22:54:52 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:54:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183028] Review Request: perl-Spiffy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602272254.k1RMsqod018462@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Spiffy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183028 ------- Additional Comments From steve at silug.org 2006-02-27 17:54 EST ------- OK, I've dropped the bogus mixin.pm. http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Spiffy-0.30-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 28 01:55:19 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:55:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183028] Review Request: perl-Spiffy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602280155.k1S1tJVK023397@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Spiffy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183028 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-02-27 20:54 EST ------- I think we're set. Approved. BTW, while talking with Ville I found that for correctness you need to backwhack the first XXX. My screwup. I don't know if it breaks anything, but you might wnat to hit it before checking in. The current version of this stuff is at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 28 15:52:32 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:52:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183028] Review Request: perl-Spiffy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602281552.k1SFqWiL019169@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Spiffy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183028 ------- Additional Comments From steve at silug.org 2006-02-28 10:52 EST ------- > BTW, while talking with Ville I found that for correctness you need to > backwhack the first XXX. My screwup. I don't know if it breaks anything, > but you might wnat to hit it before checking in. I wonder what the reason is for that. It seems to build fine as-is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 28 19:49:30 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:49:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183028] Review Request: perl-Spiffy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602281949.k1SJnUiJ020433@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Spiffy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183028 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2006-02-28 14:49 EST ------- Yes, because the perl.prov and perl.req and friends scriptles don't currently take any arguments but just read the filelist from stdin. Backslash protects the $* so it won't be expanded too early when emitting the script. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 28 20:42:26 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:42:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183028] Review Request: perl-Spiffy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602282042.k1SKgQa2003455@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Spiffy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183028 ------- Additional Comments From steve at silug.org 2006-02-28 15:42 EST ------- Ah, so to be more obvious to a perl person, would this be acceptable? cat <<'END' > %{name}-prov #!/bin/sh %{__perl_provides} "$@" | sed -e '/^perl(DB)$/d' END %define __perl_provides %{_builddir}/Spiffy-%{version}/%{name}-prov chmod +x %{__perl_provides} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 28 20:53:14 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:53:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183028] Review Request: perl-Spiffy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602282053.k1SKrEKU005794@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Spiffy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183028 ------- Additional Comments From steve at silug.org 2006-02-28 15:53 EST ------- Actually, since anything using Module::Signature doesn't like for anything to be in the build directory that isn't in MANIFEST, I'm going with this (unless there are any objections): cat <<'END' > %{_sourcedir}/%{name}-prov #!/bin/sh %{__perl_provides} "$@" | sed -e '/^perl(DB)$/d' END %define __perl_provides %{_sourcedir}/%{name}-prov chmod +x %{__perl_provides} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 28 21:00:55 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:00:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 183028] Review Request: perl-Spiffy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602282100.k1SL0tFb008017@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Spiffy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183028 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2006-02-28 16:00 EST ------- That will leave trash behind in sourcedir. And for a number of reasons, all Module::Signature checks should be disabled anyway (the exact way how to do that varies between packages). More info: http://koti.welho.com/vskytta/packagers-handbook/packagers-handbook.html#guidelines-perl-cpansign -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.