[Bug 237883] Review Request: perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP - Perl interface to the OpenSP SGML and XML parser

[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-SGML-Parser-OpenSP - Perl interface to the OpenSP SGML and XML parser


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237883





------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi  2007-04-27 02:25 EST -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> There's a samples/ directory.  Why not include it in %doc?

I can't imagine what those files would be useful for if included.  They're just
data used by the test suite.  Did I miss something?

> Also...  perl is referred to as %{__perl}, while, e.g., rm isn't %{__rm}.

That's on purpose; it's what the perl (and python and php-pear) spec templates,
cpanspec, and 620+ perl-* packages in Fedora do.  rpmbuild itself uses %{__perl}
for setting the install paths and macroizing it serves a functional purpose of
making it possible to rebuild these packages with a perl other than
/usr/bin/perl.  And we know %{__perl} is available or the installation will fail
anyway, so why not use it for the in-place edits as well (+ for consistency)? 
It's quite hard to come up with a use case where plain "rm" in $PATH wouldn't
work (ie. wouldn't grok "-f" or "-rf").  So I think this is a valid example of
consistently using the non-macroized "base" case in which certain commands that
are really useful to have/use macroized are done so.

> Missing BRs on perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) and perl(Test::More) (due to 
> perl/perl-devel splittage).

As discussed, perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) is intentionally missing. 
perl(Test::More) is pulled in by perl-Test-Pod and perl-Test-Exception (through
perl(Test::Builder) being in the same post-perl-split perl-Test-Simple package
as perl(Test::More)).  Even if this is not quite as explicit as it could be, I
don't see this becoming a problem.  Will of course fix if it does.

> but I'd prefer to see a discussion on fedora-perl-devel first.

Please do discuss (or let me know if you'd approve this right now if the pod
coverage tests would be run).  BTW, in addition to Pod coverage tests IMO being
of very doubtful usefulness in packaging, perl-Test-Pod-Coverage and
perl-Pod-Coverage are not found packaged as often as perl-Test-Pod; I think
that's not a coincidence.  For example, EPEL doesn't have them, so rebuilding
this package (assuming the Test::Pod::Coverage BR in place) for it would have to
jump through extra hoops of packaging the coverage things first for IMO no gain.

-- 
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.