[Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2

[bugzilla at 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-RPM2


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530


paul at city-fan.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |paul at city-fan.org
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org  2006-03-17 07:02 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> OK, I've resolved each of the issues raised:
> 
> >  - I can't find any evidence of license terms under which this package can be
> >  distributed, which would be a blocker and in need of fixing upstream
> 
> The rpm has always had tag:
> 'License: distributable
> '
> and there are no license restrictions or copyright in any source file 
> or on the package CPAN home-page. As perl-RPM2 is already distributed
> in every Fedora Core and  RHEL release except FC-5, these terms are 
> evidently acceptable.

Put it this way; if this package had not been included in previous Core/RHEL
releases, it would definitely not be allowed into Extras without a clear
license. There is a similar issue affecting Bug 171640
(perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate). Given that packages migrating from Core to
Extras must go through the same review process as any other package, I don't
think this issue can waived so lightly.

What I think needs to happen is one of:
(a) Upstream clarifying the license, or
(b) Legal stating that this particular package is OK (and, preferably, why), or
(c) Legal stating that a class of packages into which this one falls (e.g.
packages from CPAN, packages migrating from Core) are OK to be included without
a clear license; this could be beneficial for perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate too.

> > - Extras packages shouldn't have a buildreq on perl
> 
> This package cannot be built without the perl package being
> installed; hence, the 'BuildRequires: perl' tag.

Perl is explicitly listed as one of the exclusions from BuildRequires in the
packaging guidelines at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines and
the package review guidelines at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines state that:

  MUST: A package must not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in
  the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.

> > - latest changelog release tag doesn't match actual release tag
> 
> huh? The %{version}-%{release} is 0.66-12 - latest changelog:
> * Thu Mar 08 2006 Jason Vas Dias <jvdias at redhat.com> - 0.66-12

Not in the original SRPM, which had:
* Fri Feb 03 2006 Jason Vas Dias <jvdias at redhat.com> - 0.66-11.1

> > - some of the tests fail but "make check" passes - why?
> 
> Because the package was not being built as root. 
> 
> Now, all tests that require root access are skipped if being run by a non-root
> user, so all tests pass as a non-root user; I've also tested that those tests
> are run and pass if run by root.

Good; I understand why the tests were failing originally, but what I don't
understand is why the presence of failing tests didn't cause the package build
to fail in %check.

> > - missing buildreqs elfutils-libelf-devel and bzip2-devel
> 
> Added.

Good. Build in mock now works.

> > - using find/filelist method for %files results in unowned directory
> > %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/RPM2
> 
> I've added:
> %dir %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/RPM2
> 
> to %files list.

Good.

> >- consider adding %{?dist} tag if this package is likely to be needed for 
> >  future Fedora releases
> 
> Added.

Good.

> Modified .spec file and srpm at:
>   http://people.redhat.com/~jvdias/perl-RPM2.spec
>   http://people.redhat.com/~jvdias/perl-RPM2-0.66-12.src.rpm

Please bump the release number for iterations of packages during the review
process; it helps people to see which version is being referred to.

Still to do: clarify license, remove perl buildreq.
Then I can approve.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.