[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: CPAN RPM archive?



On Sun, 2003-11-30 at 14:02, Warren Togami wrote:
> I would urge you all to look at the cpan2rpm and perl-RPM-Specfile at
> fedora.us.  Ville Skytta worked hard to modify both packages to output
> RHattified spec files that for the most part "proper".  In many cases
> fedora.us has simply used auto-generated specs and modified it slightly
> to have better descriptions, comments and a changelog.  In some
> instances however minor patches are needed to make it properly integrate
> in a Red Hat-ish way.

Some minor corrections and my IMHO, YMMV status:

I haven't really looked into cpan2rpm but I have made some improvements
to the perl-RPM-Specfile package (be sure to grab the fedora.us version
as all changes have been submitted upstream, but not applied yet).

Anyway, both cpanflute2 and cpan2rpm produce pretty obfuscated
specfiles.  Instead of using them, there's a bunch of perl-* packages in
the www.fedora.us/QA queue (and lots more not-yet-submitted ones at
cachalot.mine.nu/1/SRPMS.fdr/) which are based on a template which is
based on earlier discussions in bugzilla.fedora.us and fedora-devel at
fedora.us list.

I've just submitted the specfile template to
https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1010 for comments. 
cpanflute2 and/or cpan2rpm could possibly be tweaked more towards this. 
The main difference currently with the template and cpanflute2 is that
the template takes care of removing more unneeded files and bluntly
works around the unowned dirs issue in the past and current RH and FC
perl packages,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73970

For some weird reason, even though perl module packages (especially when
a template is consistently used) are trivial to review, the QA process
seems to take a long time.  Help is certainly welcome in this area.




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]