[Bug 458866] Review Request: xls2csv - A script that recodes a spreadsheet's charset and saves as CSV

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458866





--- Comment #9 from Björn Persson <bjorn at xn--rombobjrn-67a.se>  2009-08-09 21:04:18 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel depends on perl(Unicode::Map), so you get that
> > pulled in by the automatic dependency on perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel)
> Hm... Such dependency may be broken in the future. Imagine:
> perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel) in the future may change implementation to do not
> use perl(Unicode::Map). Therefore, it is not mean what this package not use it
> also. So, I think it Requires: perl(Unicode::Map) should be explicit there.

The question is, does xls2csv use Unicode::Map directly, or does it need
Unicode::Map only because Spreadsheet::ParseExcel uses it? Unicode::Map isn't
mentioned anywhere in the code, only in the documentation. I also searched for
the names of the documented methods of Unicode::Map, and didn't find any of
them. Therefore I think that xls2csv doesn't use Unicode::Map directly, and
that if Spreadsheet::ParseExcel gets changed to not use Unicode::Map, then
xls2csv won't need it either. I'm not a Perl expert however, so I may have
missed something. You may want to ask for advice on Fedora-perl-devel-list.

> BTW, Björn Persson, thank you for the help. Half way done, don't you want
> review this package?  

I'm not qualified to do reviews. Comment and discuss like this is all I can do
until I find a sponsor, but I think this package is close to being ready for
approval.

There is one thing I haven't mentioned before because I wasn't sure what's
right, namely the license field. Using "and" in the license field means that
the package contains some files with one license and some other files with
another license. That's not really possible when the whole program is only one
file. The licensing guidelines also say that in such cases there must be a
comment explaining what parts are covered by which license.
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios)

So should it be "GPL+ or Artistic" or "GPLv2+ or Artistic"? I'm not sure. The
Perl packaging document seems to say that "the same terms as Perl itself"
should be translated to "GPL+ or Artistic"
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#License_tag), but the points it
makes aren't about the distinction between GPL+ and GPLv2+. Perhaps you should
ask on Fedora-perl-devel-list about this too.

-- 
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.