[Bug 427479] Review Request: perl-ParseLex - Perl lexical analyzer.

[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-ParseLex - Perl lexical analyzer.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427479





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-01-17 01:13 EST -------
I'll do a full review....

Builds OK for me.  rpmlint is down to just
  perl-ParseLex.noarch: E: useless-explicit-provides perl(Parse::Token)
I see where you added the filter, but I think you neglected to change something on the sed line.

What you need is:
  cat << \EOF > ParseLex-prov
  #!/bin/sh
  %{__perl_provides} $* |\
    sed -e '/perl(Parse::Token)$/d'
  EOF
Note the change from "unwanted_provides" to "Parse::Token", but also note that I've anchored the match to the end of the string so the proper versioned provide doesn't get removed as well.

I notice that the tarball included in the srpm is not the same as the tarball on CPAN.  Do you know what's going on there?  Upstream source hasn't changed in nine years but the tarball in the srpm has a modification time of the 15th.

If you are going to use macros like %{__make}, you should consistently use macros.  Which means %{__rm} in %clean and %{__cat}, %{__sed}, %{__chmod} in %prep. (There's no macro for find for whatever reason.)  Or you can just drop the macros.  It's up to your personal preference, but you must be consistent.

The Summary: is a bit content-free (it's just the name turned around with module appended).  Upstream says "Generator of lexical analyzers" which at least says something about what it does.

Checklist:
X source files don't match upstream.
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
X specfile does not use macros consistently.
X summary would use some improvement.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
X rpmlint has a valid complaint.
X still an errant provide:
   perl(Parse::ALex) = 2.15
   perl(Parse::CLex)
   perl(Parse::Lex)
   perl(Parse::LexEvent) = 1.00
   perl(Parse::Template) = 0.32
X  perl(Parse::Token)
   perl(Parse::Token) = 2.15
   perl(Parse::Token::Action)
   perl(Parse::Token::Delimited)
   perl(Parse::Token::Nested)
   perl(Parse::Token::Quoted)
   perl(Parse::Token::Segmented)
   perl(Parse::Token::Simple)
   perl(Parse::Tokenizer)
   perl(Parse::Trace)
   perl(Parse::YYLex) = 0.91
   perl-ParseLex = 2.15-9.fc9
  =
   perl >= 0:5.000
   perl >= 0:5.003
   perl >= 0:5.004
   perl >= 0:5.005
   perl(Carp)
   perl(Parse::ALex)
   perl(Parse::Lex)
   perl(Parse::Template)
   perl(Parse::Token) >= 2.15
   perl(Parse::Trace)
   perl(constant)
   perl(integer)
   perl(strict)
   perl(vars)

* %check is present and all tests pass:
   All tests successful.
   Files=7, Tests=7,  1 wallclock secs ( 0.17 cusr +  0.06 csys =  0.23 CPU)

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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.