From rnorwood at redhat.com Sun Apr 1 01:01:48 2007 From: rnorwood at redhat.com (Robin Norwood) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:01:48 -0400 Subject: New perl spec file In-Reply-To: <1175318553.24401.351.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> (Ralf Corsepius's message of "Sat, 31 Mar 2007 07:22:33 +0200") References: <1175316772.24401.339.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1175318553.24401.351.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: Ralf Corsepius writes: [...] >> It doesn't work. >> >> The epochs on dependencies on "perl" inside of sub-packages are wrong. >> >> E.g.: >> # rpm -q --requires -p perl-CPAN-1.76_02-16.i386.rpm >> ... >> perl = 0:5.8.8-16 >> ... >> >> # rpm -q --provides -p perl-5.8.8-16.i386.rpm >> ... >> perl = 4:5.8.8-16 >> ... >> >> This causes all kind of dependency breakages in yum. >> >> AFAIS, you seem to have missed the %{epoch} related Requires having been >> contained in my latest *.spec. > Scratch this sentence - I was wrong. > > You added > Requires: perl = %{epoch}:%{perl_version}-%{release} > to subpackages' %package. > > > This breaks if a subpackage uses a different Epoch as the main packages, > for example this: > ... > %package Test-Harness > Summary: Run Perl standard test scripts with statistics > Group: Development/Languages > Epoch: 0 > Version: 2.56 > Requires: perl-devel > Requires: perl = %{epoch}:%{perl_version}-%{release} > ... > > At the time, rpm processes the %{epoch} inside of the > "Requires: perl =...", > %{epoch} contains the "0" from the "Epoch: 0" line above and doesn't > contain the global epoch anymore. > > > A brute-force approach to work-around this would be to add a global > %define perl_epoch 4 > at the beginning of the *.spec and to replace all references to the main > perl package's Epoch (%{epoch}) with %{perl_epoch} > > The patch below implements this approach. Good catch Ralf, thanks - I've applied that patch and I'll try out a local build. Thanks, -RN -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Apr 1 07:39:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 03:39:43 -0400 Subject: [Bug 234404] Cannot manage big listboxes with perl-Tk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704010739.l317dhvQ030149@bugzilla.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: Cannot manage big listboxes with perl-Tk. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234404 andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(pierre.lacaze at neuf | |.fr) ------- Additional Comments From andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de 2007-04-01 03:39 EST ------- Hm I suspect that perl-Tk should be rebuild because on FC6 it works without a problem. Will push a rebuild now. Please get back to me if it works afterwards. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Apr 1 18:25:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:25:12 -0400 Subject: [Bug 230037] not well-formed (invalid token) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704011825.l31IPCLL018616@bugzilla.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: not well-formed (invalid token) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230037 ------- Additional Comments From dhighley at highley-recommended.com 2007-04-01 14:25 EST ------- There has been an update available for this package for quite a while now, is the rpm going to be updated? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Apr 1 21:41:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:41:25 -0400 Subject: [Bug 230037] not well-formed (invalid token) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704012141.l31LfPtl024667@bugzilla.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: not well-formed (invalid token) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230037 tcallawa at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Core Component|perl-HTML-Tree |perl-XML-Twig ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2007-04-01 17:41 EST ------- Reassigning to perl-XML-Twig, as perl-HTML-Tree has been at the latest version since late 2006. I can confirm that the perl-XML-Twig package in devel (F7) resolves this bug (bug is in xmltv, not yet available as a Fedora package). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Apr 1 21:42:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Bug 230037] not well-formed (invalid token) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704012142.l31Lgnhm024723@bugzilla.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: not well-formed (invalid token) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230037 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2007-04-01 17:42 EST ------- To clarify, the bug is triggered by xmltv. That's where tv_grab_na_icons comes from. Pushing the devel perl-XML-Twig package as an FC-6 update should resolve this bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Apr 1 21:43:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:43:30 -0400 Subject: [Bug 230037] not well-formed (invalid token) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704012143.l31LhUGv024750@bugzilla.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: not well-formed (invalid token) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230037 tcallawa at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tcallawa at redhat.com |rnorwood at redhat.com QAContact|extras-qa at fedoraproject.org | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Sun Apr 1 22:27:59 2007 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (Fedora Extras repoclosure) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:27:59 -0000 Subject: Broken dependencies in Fedora Extras development - 2007-04-01 Message-ID: <20070401222759.31755.66942@extras64.linux.duke.edu> This is an automated mail created by an experimental script. Your following packages in the repository contain broken dependencies: ====================================================================== The results in this report consider unreleased updates in the build-system's needsign-queue! ====================================================================== package: perl-DateTime - 1:0.37-1.fc7.i386 from fedora-extras-needsign-development-i386 unresolved deps: perl(Win32::TieRegistry) package: perl-DateTime - 1:0.37-1.fc7.ppc from fedora-extras-needsign-development-ppc unresolved deps: perl(Win32::TieRegistry) package: perl-DateTime - 1:0.37-1.fc7.x86_64 from fedora-extras-needsign-development-x86_64 unresolved deps: perl(Win32::TieRegistry) From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 2 18:26:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:26:10 -0400 Subject: [Bug 230037] not well-formed (invalid token) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704021826.l32IQA4n004972@bugzilla.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: not well-formed (invalid token) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230037 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-04-02 14:26 EST ------- Fair enough. New version built (3.29-1) and seems to work fine. It should be available in 'updates-testing' in a few minutesI don't feel like installing xmltv right now, so let me know if the new version doesn't fix your problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 2 18:40:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:40:10 -0400 Subject: [Bug 234404] Cannot manage big listboxes with perl-Tk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704021840.l32IeALR006598@bugzilla.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: Cannot manage big listboxes with perl-Tk. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234404 pierre.lacaze at neuf.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(pierre.lacaze at neuf| |.fr) | ------- Additional Comments From pierre.lacaze at neuf.fr 2007-04-02 14:40 EST ------- Hello, I do not know if you have pushed the rebuild (yum update perl-Tk gives nothing new). But I downloaded the sources from the Debian site http://packages.debian.org/stable/source/perl-tk (file perl-tk_800.025.orig), compiled them, and the bug has disappeared. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 2 19:14:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 15:14:31 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704021914.l32JEVgl010035@bugzilla.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 Alias: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 bugzilla at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-04-02 15:14 EST ------- Yeah, i don't see it either - did I miss a step here? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 2 19:20:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 15:20:58 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704021920.l32JKwK3010972@bugzilla.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 Alias: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 2 23:21:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:21:16 -0400 Subject: [Bug 234934] BR Affix::Infix2Postfix and Image::Math::Constrain for better test coverage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704022321.l32NLG88002355@bugzilla.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: BR Affix::Infix2Postfix and Image::Math::Constrain for better test coverage https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234934 steve at silug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-perl-devel- | |list at redhat.com BugsThisDependsOn| |234939, 234940 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Apr 3 12:22:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704031222.l33CMJnD020794@bugzilla.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 Alias: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-04-03 08:22 EST ------- Sorry, seems I forgot to make the cvs module. Should be there now, please try again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From rnorwood at redhat.com Tue Apr 3 21:05:28 2007 From: rnorwood at redhat.com (Robin Norwood) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:05:28 -0400 Subject: New perl spec file In-Reply-To: (Robin Norwood's message of "Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:01:48 -0400") References: <1175316772.24401.339.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1175318553.24401.351.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: Alright, try, try again: This includes the fixed epochs, as well as various references to %{_libdir} and %{_prefix} where it seemed appropriate. One thing I'm curious about - I notice that the perl-CPAN package doesn't automatically provide 'cpan' or anything similar - so 'yum install cpan' is likely to fail. Would it be wise to add a: Provides: cpan To that package? Thanks, -RN Robin Norwood writes: > Ralf Corsepius writes: > > [...] > >>> It doesn't work. >>> >>> The epochs on dependencies on "perl" inside of sub-packages are wrong. >>> >>> E.g.: >>> # rpm -q --requires -p perl-CPAN-1.76_02-16.i386.rpm >>> ... >>> perl = 0:5.8.8-16 >>> ... >>> >>> # rpm -q --provides -p perl-5.8.8-16.i386.rpm >>> ... >>> perl = 4:5.8.8-16 >>> ... >>> >>> This causes all kind of dependency breakages in yum. >>> >>> AFAIS, you seem to have missed the %{epoch} related Requires having been >>> contained in my latest *.spec. >> Scratch this sentence - I was wrong. >> >> You added >> Requires: perl = %{epoch}:%{perl_version}-%{release} >> to subpackages' %package. >> >> >> This breaks if a subpackage uses a different Epoch as the main packages, >> for example this: >> ... >> %package Test-Harness >> Summary: Run Perl standard test scripts with statistics >> Group: Development/Languages >> Epoch: 0 >> Version: 2.56 >> Requires: perl-devel >> Requires: perl = %{epoch}:%{perl_version}-%{release} >> ... >> >> At the time, rpm processes the %{epoch} inside of the >> "Requires: perl =...", >> %{epoch} contains the "0" from the "Epoch: 0" line above and doesn't >> contain the global epoch anymore. >> >> >> A brute-force approach to work-around this would be to add a global >> %define perl_epoch 4 >> at the beginning of the *.spec and to replace all references to the main >> perl package's Epoch (%{epoch}) with %{perl_epoch} >> >> The patch below implements this approach. > > Good catch Ralf, thanks - I've applied that patch and I'll try out a > local build. > > Thanks, > > -RN > > -- > Robin Norwood > Red Hat, Inc. > > "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." > -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Apr 3 23:15:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:15:35 -0400 Subject: [Bug 230037] not well-formed (invalid token) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704032315.l33NFZ4W021836@bugzilla.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: not well-formed (invalid token) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230037 ------- Additional Comments From dhighley at highley-recommended.com 2007-04-03 19:15 EST ------- I can confirm that updating to version 3.29-1 of perl-XML-Twig fixed the issue reported. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Apr 4 15:09:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:09:30 -0400 Subject: [Bug 230037] not well-formed (invalid token) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704041509.l34F9UZ8025206@bugzilla.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: not well-formed (invalid token) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230037 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-04-04 11:09 EST ------- Great, thanks - I've submitted it to the release team as an update for fc6. fc7 will have 3.29 as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Apr 4 15:17:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:17:07 -0400 Subject: [Bug 234404] Cannot manage big listboxes with perl-Tk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704041517.l34FH7lk025671@bugzilla.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: Cannot manage big listboxes with perl-Tk. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234404 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|rnorwood at redhat.com |andreas.bierfert at lowlatency. | |de -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From rnorwood at redhat.com Wed Apr 4 14:10:21 2007 From: rnorwood at redhat.com (Robin Norwood) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:10:21 -0400 Subject: New perl spec file In-Reply-To: (Robin Norwood's message of "Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:05:28 -0400") References: <1175316772.24401.339.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1175318553.24401.351.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: Robin Norwood writes: > Alright, try, try again: > > This includes the fixed epochs, as well as various references to > %{_libdir} and %{_prefix} where it seemed appropriate. > > One thing I'm curious about - I notice that the perl-CPAN package > doesn't automatically provide 'cpan' or anything similar - so 'yum > install cpan' is likely to fail. Would it be wise to add a: > > Provides: cpan > > To that package? And did I include the spec file in question? No, I did not. Here it is: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: perl.spec URL: -------------- next part -------------- -RN > Robin Norwood writes: > >> Ralf Corsepius writes: >> >> [...] >> >>>> It doesn't work. >>>> >>>> The epochs on dependencies on "perl" inside of sub-packages are wrong. >>>> >>>> E.g.: >>>> # rpm -q --requires -p perl-CPAN-1.76_02-16.i386.rpm >>>> ... >>>> perl = 0:5.8.8-16 >>>> ... >>>> >>>> # rpm -q --provides -p perl-5.8.8-16.i386.rpm >>>> ... >>>> perl = 4:5.8.8-16 >>>> ... >>>> >>>> This causes all kind of dependency breakages in yum. >>>> >>>> AFAIS, you seem to have missed the %{epoch} related Requires having been >>>> contained in my latest *.spec. >>> Scratch this sentence - I was wrong. >>> >>> You added >>> Requires: perl = %{epoch}:%{perl_version}-%{release} >>> to subpackages' %package. >>> >>> >>> This breaks if a subpackage uses a different Epoch as the main packages, >>> for example this: >>> ... >>> %package Test-Harness >>> Summary: Run Perl standard test scripts with statistics >>> Group: Development/Languages >>> Epoch: 0 >>> Version: 2.56 >>> Requires: perl-devel >>> Requires: perl = %{epoch}:%{perl_version}-%{release} >>> ... >>> >>> At the time, rpm processes the %{epoch} inside of the >>> "Requires: perl =...", >>> %{epoch} contains the "0" from the "Epoch: 0" line above and doesn't >>> contain the global epoch anymore. >>> >>> >>> A brute-force approach to work-around this would be to add a global >>> %define perl_epoch 4 >>> at the beginning of the *.spec and to replace all references to the main >>> perl package's Epoch (%{epoch}) with %{perl_epoch} >>> >>> The patch below implements this approach. >> >> Good catch Ralf, thanks - I've applied that patch and I'll try out a >> local build. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -RN >> >> -- >> Robin Norwood >> Red Hat, Inc. >> >> "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." >> -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching > > -- > Robin Norwood > Red Hat, Inc. > > "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." > -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Apr 4 19:00:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:00:24 -0400 Subject: [Bug 234404] Cannot manage big listboxes with perl-Tk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704041900.l34J0OHI016641@bugzilla.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: Cannot manage big listboxes with perl-Tk. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234404 ------- Additional Comments From pierre.lacaze at neuf.fr 2007-04-04 15:00 EST ------- Hello, I unsinstalled my self-compiled package, and installed perl-Tk via yum instead. Now, the release is 804.027-11.fc7. On my computer, the bug happens again, just like before. In fact, I think the bug already happened in FC6, so I suppose a rebuild is not enough to solve the bug. We should use the latest sources. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Apr 4 19:36:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704041936.l34Ja37s019776@bugzilla.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 Alias: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(petersen at redhat.co | |m) ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-04-04 15:35 EST ------- Hrm - checking out the module works for me now (cvs co perl-RPM2), but importing it fails: """ [rnorwood at solitude fedora-extras]$ common/cvs-import.sh /tmp/perl-RPM2-0.67-1.src.rpm Checking out module: 'perl-RPM2' connect to address 10.8.34.151 port 544: Connection refused cvs [checkout aborted]: end of file from server (consult above messages if any) ERROR: "perl-RPM2" module does not exist in cvs. [rnorwood at solitude fedora-extras]$ echo $CVSROOT :ext:rnorwood at cvs.fedora.redhat.com:/cvs/extras [rnorwood at solitude fedora-extras]$ echo $CVS_RSH ssh """ Any ideas? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Apr 4 23:04:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:04:23 -0400 Subject: [Bug 228433] perl-version: EPEL branch? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704042304.l34N4NLG001786@bugzilla.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: perl-version: EPEL branch? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228433 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2007-04-04 19:04 EST ------- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-version New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Updated EPEL Owners: tcallawa at redhat.com Updated EPEL CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Apr 4 23:04:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:04:37 -0400 Subject: [Bug 228433] perl-version: EPEL branch? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704042304.l34N4bWW001809@bugzilla.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: perl-version: EPEL branch? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228433 tcallawa at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Apr 5 00:05:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:05:17 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704050005.l3505Hk6004137@bugzilla.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 Alias: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(petersen at redhat.co| |m) | ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-04-04 20:04 EST ------- (In reply to comment #35) > connect to address 10.8.34.151 port 544: Connection refused > cvs [checkout aborted]: end of file from server (consult above messages if any) That doesn't look right. Sorry but could you try again and if you still have problems please ask on #fedora-admin or cvsadmin-members at fedoraproject org. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Apr 5 10:32:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 06:32:05 -0400 Subject: [Bug 235347] New: sa-update failed to execute without some dependency RPMs Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235347 Summary: sa-update failed to execute without some dependency RPMs Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux Version: 4.4 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: normal Component: spamassassin AssignedTo: wtogami at redhat.com ReportedBy: jplans at redhat.com CC: fedora-perl-devel- list at redhat.com,felicity at kluge.net,jm at jmason.org,parkerm @pobox.com,reg+redhat at sidney.com,smooge at mindspring.com,t .matsuu at gmail.com,tmz at pobox.com,wtogami at redhat.com +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #193100 +++ Description of problem: Dependency missing in spec file. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): spamassassin-3.1.1-1.fc5 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install spamassassin 2. execute sa-update 3. Actual results: # sa-update Can't locate Archive/Tar.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.4/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.3/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.4 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.3 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.4/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.3/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.4 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.3 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8) at /usr/bin/sa-update line 81. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/bin/sa-update line 81. Expected results: No error. Additional info: Following RPMs are missing in dependency section of the spec file. perl-IO-Zlib perl-Archive-Tar -- Additional comment from wtogami at redhat.com on 2006-05-25 12:11 EST -- We currently cannot add these to Core. You may install them from Extras if you wish to use sa-update. -- Additional comment from t.matsuu at gmail.com on 2006-06-07 02:00 EST -- (In reply to comment #1) > You may install them from Extras Really? I found perl-Archive-Tar and perl-IO-Zlib in FC5. ftp://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/5/source/SRPMS/ -- Additional comment from wtogami at redhat.com on 2006-06-07 11:17 EST -- Hmm, didn't realize they were in Core. Adding. -- Additional comment from tmz at pobox.com on 2006-12-25 21:26 EST -- Any chance of pulling these changes in to the FC5 packages while it's still supported? -- Additional comment from tmz at pobox.com on 2006-12-27 00:53 EST -- There seem to still be missing Requires for the FC6 and devel packages regarding sa-update. Both LWP::UserAgent and HTTP::Date are needed (both are provided in perl-libwww-perl). Looking at the devel package I see that an sa-update cronjob is added (though disabled by default). if folks enable that and don't have the proper perl modules they'll just get a spew of perl prose in their mailbox. They may even think that Spamassassin is junky instead of the incredible tool that it is. Output on FC6 without perl-libwww-perl: $ sudo sa-update Can't locate LWP/UserAgent.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8) at /usr/bin/sa-update line 92. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/bin/sa-update line 92. Not being terribly familiar with upstream SA history and noticing that Justin Mason is on the CC list for this bug, I'm curious why sa-update uses evals in the use ... statements to "avoid the annoying RPM requirement check." If it's just to allow the upstream packaged rpm to not require the deps for sa-update perhaps it would be better to split sa-update into a separate package in the upstream rpm? -- Additional comment from jm at jmason.org on 2006-12-27 07:19 EST -- yep, it's just to allow the upstream packaged rpm to not require the deps for sa-update (or the other optional components of SA). we are indeed thinking of splitting sa-update into a separate RPM, so taht it can have its own deps; Warren, your $.02 would be very welcome at that bug ;) -- Additional comment from tmz at pobox.com on 2006-12-27 09:50 EST -- Thanks for the info Justin. I've used SA for quite a while now and I've never had a problem with sa-update's deps - all of my systems have had the additional perl mods that need to get pulled in for it to work. So to me the easiest solution is to just strip the evals and let sa-update's deps be added by rpm automagically. Thanks for all of the work on SA Justin. 'Tis a very hard package to live without. -- Additional comment from wtogami at redhat.com on 2006-12-27 14:10 EST -- I will issue this in FC5 soon. Regarding split into a separate sa-update package, it doesn't matter if this happens or not for us. In existing products I would need to include sa-update within the main spamassassin package, because in upgrade scenarios I can't have sa-update just disappear. -- Additional comment from wtogami at redhat.com on 2006-12-27 14:26 EST -- Actually, no, I will not issue a FC5 update only for this reason. There are no actual bug fixes here. I may issue it later when there is a new version of spamassassin. -- Additional comment from tmz at pobox.com on 2006-12-27 14:57 EST -- No problem holding an FC5 update until a new upstream release or some more important bug warrants it. I had just noticed that it wasn't added to the spec for the FC-5 branch and didn't want it to get missed if possible. And yeah, understood that splitting sa-updates into a new package upstream doesn't mean FC should. But if they do, that will likely mean the evals will disappear and then rpm's automatic dep handling will work as it should. Thanks Warren. -- Additional comment from smooge at mindspring.com on 2006-12-29 22:46 EST -- How about a FC6 fix then as it is broken in FCL-6.. -- Additional comment from wtogami at redhat.com on 2006-12-29 23:03 EST -- It is? The package in FC6 has the right perl module dependencies. Are you sure it isn't SELinux? Bug #187974 is the selinux problem. I don't know if this was pushed to FC5 or FC6 yet. -- Additional comment from tmz at pobox.com on 2006-12-30 04:02 EST -- The FC6 package is still missing deps for LWP::Useragent and HTTP::Date, both provided by perl-libwww-perl: [root at zod ~]# cat /etc/fedora-release Fedora Core release 6 (Zod) [root at zod ~]# rpm -q spamassassin spamassassin-3.1.7-1.fc6 [root at zod ~]# sa-update Can't locate LWP/UserAgent.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8) at /usr/bin/sa-update line 92. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/bin/sa-update line 92. -- Additional comment from wtogami at redhat.com on 2006-12-30 04:41 EST -- Argh, OK thanks. This will be pushed in devel soon, and both FC5 and FC6 after there is a more substantial reason (major bug fix or new upstream release) to push an update. -- Additional comment from tmz at pobox.com on 2007-01-27 11:28 EST -- Created an attachment (id=146745) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=146745&action=view) Patch to add missing sa-update deps HTTP::Date and LWP::UserAgent are still missing from the latest spamassassin updates. Both are provided via perl-libwww-perl which is available on all supported systems AFAICT. Would it be a problem to include them unconditionally the same way that Net::DNS is? -- Additional comment from wtogami at redhat.com on 2007-01-28 00:04 EST -- Thanks, I'm adding this to spamassassin-3_1_7-6 and higher. This will not be pushed to FC5 or FC6 yet though, until we have acquired more higher priority bug fixes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Apr 5 10:32:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 06:32:41 -0400 Subject: [Bug 193100] sa-update failed to execute without some dependency RPMs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704051032.l35AWfEA005101@bugzilla.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: sa-update failed to execute without some dependency RPMs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193100 jplans at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |235347 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Apr 5 10:33:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 06:33:27 -0400 Subject: [Bug 235347] sa-update failed to execute without some dependency RPMs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704051033.l35AXRkE005163@bugzilla.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: sa-update failed to execute without some dependency RPMs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235347 jplans at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |rhel-4.6? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Apr 5 10:42:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 06:42:28 -0400 Subject: [Bug 235347] sa-update failed to execute without some dependency RPMs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704051042.l35AgSSn005430@bugzilla.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: sa-update failed to execute without some dependency RPMs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235347 pm-rhel at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |pm_ack? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Apr 5 14:48:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704051448.l35EmSkc020809@bugzilla.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 Alias: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-04-05 10:48 EST ------- Ok, I figured out what was breaking. The odd error message threw me off...I added a -t to the cvs command in the cvs_import.sh script: -> Starting server: /usr/kerberos/bin/krsh -l rnorwood cvs.fedora.redhat.com cvs server It's using krsh probably because I use krsh for my RH CVS checkout - my ~/.bashrc was setting CVS_RSH to it because of some changed I'd made recently. Works now, thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Apr 5 15:06:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:06:51 -0400 Subject: [Bug 235347] sa-update failed to execute without some dependency RPMs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704051506.l35F6pFg024189@bugzilla.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: sa-update failed to execute without some dependency RPMs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235347 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|t.matsuu at gmail.com, | |parkerm at pobox.com, | |smooge at mindspring.com, | |tmz at pobox.com, fedora-perl- | |devel-list at redhat.com, | |reg+redhat at sidney.com, | |felicity at kluge.net, | |jm at jmason.org | ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-04-05 11:06 EST ------- The solution needed for RHEL-4 is different from the above. We would need to add perl-Archive-Tar and a few other perl modules that it relies upon to RHEL-4.6 in order to support this feature. PM and QA need to decide whether this is something they are willing to approve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Apr 5 15:26:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:26:19 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704051526.l35FQJbl025986@bugzilla.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 Alias: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-04-05 11:26 EST ------- Ok, ran builds for FC-5 and FC-6. We'll see how they go. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Apr 5 16:13:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:13:32 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704051613.l35GDW7l031868@bugzilla.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 Alias: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-04-05 12:13 EST ------- ok, looks like they both built successfully. Finally done with this bug. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Apr 6 05:59:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 01:59:08 -0400 Subject: [Bug 228433] perl-version: EPEL branch? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704060559.l365x8nf004220@bugzilla.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: perl-version: EPEL branch? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228433 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-04-06 01:59 EST ------- added -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Apr 6 15:19:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:19:52 -0400 Subject: [Bug 129724] can`t been install mode one rpm at transaction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704061519.l36FJqhW005141@bugzilla.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: can`t been install mode one rpm at transaction https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=129724 bugzilla at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium mattdm at mattdm.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mattdm at mattdm.org ------- Additional Comments From mattdm at mattdm.org 2007-04-06 11:19 EST ------- Fedora Core 3 and Fedora Core 4 are no longer supported. If you could retest this issue on a current release or on the latest development / test version, we would appreciate that. Otherwise, this bug will be marked as CANTFIX one month from now. Thanks for your help and for your patience. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Apr 7 05:18:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 01:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Bug 235553] New: perl.ppc64 @INC problem, perl.ppc conflicts Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235553 Summary: perl.ppc64 @INC problem, perl.ppc conflicts Product: Fedora Core Version: fc6 Platform: ppc64 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl AssignedTo: rnorwood at redhat.com ReportedBy: christopher.murtagh at gmail.com QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: dwmw2 at redhat.com,fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Description of problem: perl.ppc64's @INC doesn't include paths where most perl binary packages are, perl-BerkeleyDB.ppc for example. [root at mybox~]# locate BerkeleyDB.pm /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/ppc-linux-thread-multi/BerkeleyDB.pm Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): current (from base) How reproducible: 100%. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install perl.ppc, perl.ppc64, install perl-BerkelyDB. 2. Then perl -e 'use BerkeleyDB; exit;' 3. There is no step 3... heh, there is no step 3. Actual results: Can't locate BerkeleyDB.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/ppc64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/ppc64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6/ppc64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/ppc64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/ppc64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7/ppc64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6/ppc64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5/ppc64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ppc64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8) at /usr/sbin/postgrey line 14. Expected results: Successful compilation and exit without error. Additional info: The workaround was to yum erase perl.ppc64, fetch the perl.ppc rpm and rpm -i --replacepkgs --replacefiles (because they both dump perl in /usr/bin/perl, so removing the perl.ppc64 still left the 64 bit binary). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 9 13:35:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 09:35:33 -0400 Subject: [Bug 235666] New: Segfault occurs when using Perl-Tk on FC6 Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235666 Summary: Segfault occurs when using Perl-Tk on FC6 Product: Fedora Extras Version: fc6 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl-Tk AssignedTo: andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de ReportedBy: daniel.frerejacque at normalesup.org QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Perl-Tk loaded on 2007 April, 8th (Tk807.02?-10) An old proved perl program get segfaults How reproducible: Always. Attached is small file with an unfolded loop asking of yes_no question. It has been extracted from a program doing a cycle edition -> latex -> viewing (here ask repeat or goto print) Steps to Reproduce: 1.Use the file attached: 2.After three choices, you got a segfault on my machine. FC6 3. Actual results: Expected results: NO SEGFAULT Additional info: The program worked fine since FC3 ------- Additional Comments From daniel.frerejacque at normalesup.org 2007-04-09 09:35 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=151990) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=151990&action=view) a small perl program using Tk -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 9 14:52:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:52:20 -0400 Subject: [Bug 129724] can`t been install mode one rpm at transaction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704091452.l39EqKN3003678@bugzilla.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: can`t been install mode one rpm at transaction https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=129724 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jvdias at redhat.com |rnorwood at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Apr 10 13:38:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Bug 235835] New: can you build for EL5? Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235835 Summary: can you build for EL5? Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl-IO-Multiplex AssignedTo: lmb at biosci.ki.se ReportedBy: bpeck at redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Description of problem: I have a package in Extras called conmux which uses perl-IO-Multiplex on the server side. I was wondering if you could build perl-IO-Multiplex for EL5 as well. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Apr 11 23:08:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:08:05 -0400 Subject: [Bug 221113] readline function in perl does not correctly set $! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704112308.l3BN85ij011995@bugzilla.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: readline function in perl does not correctly set $! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221113 bugzilla at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium ------- Additional Comments From wpilorz at gmail.com 2007-04-11 19:07 EST ------- Is there some hope for this bug to be corrected? Wojtek -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Apr 14 18:01:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:01:02 -0400 Subject: [Bug 232481] EPEL branches: a couple of perl packages from fedora.us In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704141801.l3EI12rf021959@bugzilla.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: EPEL branches: a couple of perl packages from fedora.us https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232481 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-04-14 14:01 EST ------- ======================= Package Name: perl-Test-Builder-Tester Short Description: For bugs related to the perl-Test-Builder-Tester component Owners: jpo at di.uminho.pt Branches: EL-4 (EL-4 only!) InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com ======================= Package Name: perl-Pod-Escapes Short Description: Perl module for resolving POD escape sequences Owners: jpo at di.uminho.pt Branches: EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com ======================= Package Name: perl-Pod-Simple Short Description: Framework for parsing POD documentation Owners: jpo at di.uminho.pt Branches: EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com ======================= Package Name: perl-Test-Pod Short Description: Perl module for checking for POD errors in files Owners: jpo at di.uminho.pt Branches: EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com ======================= Package Name: perl-Module-CoreList Short Description: Perl core modules indexed by perl versions Owners: jpo at di.uminho.pt Branches: EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com ======================= -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 15:37:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:37:02 -0400 Subject: [Bug 228429] mod_perl errantly provides perl(warnings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704161537.l3GFb2h0026176@bugzilla.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: mod_perl errantly provides perl(warnings) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228429 cweyl at alumni.drew.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |226155 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From rnorwood at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 15:37:50 2007 From: rnorwood at redhat.com (Robin Norwood) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:37:50 -0400 Subject: Breaking perl... Message-ID: So, I was waiting for feedback on the latest iteration of the perl spec file before proceeding, but I haven't really gotten any - I guess people are generally busy with their day jobs, etc. However, we need to make a call here with the perl spec file. The way things are now, if we build and release the current version, we'll break builds of various perl modules unless: o We add back perl-devel and some of the other subpackages as Requires for the main perl spec file. o We get those packages added to the standard buildroots - since perl is already considered standard, it isn't really a stretch to me for the -devel and related packages to be there too. o We get package owners to add perl-devel + co to their package BuildRequires sections. We need to pick one of those three options (or a better one) and communicate it to the Fedora community to proceed if we're going to use the new perl for F7. -RN -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 15:38:00 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:38:00 -0500 Subject: Breaking perl... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1176737880.3970.317.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 11:37 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote: > o We get those packages added to the standard buildroots - since perl is > already considered standard, it isn't really a stretch to me for the > -devel and related packages to be there too. Yeah. I think this is the best bet. From paul at city-fan.org Mon Apr 16 15:56:07 2007 From: paul at city-fan.org (Paul Howarth) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:56:07 +0100 Subject: Breaking perl... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46239C97.8050707@city-fan.org> Robin Norwood wrote: > So, > > I was waiting for feedback on the latest iteration of the perl spec file > before proceeding, but I haven't really gotten any - I guess people are > generally busy with their day jobs, etc. However, we need to make a > call here with the perl spec file. The way things are now, if we build > and release the current version, we'll break builds of various perl > modules unless: > > o We add back perl-devel and some of the other subpackages as Requires > for the main perl spec file. > > o We get those packages added to the standard buildroots - since perl is > already considered standard, it isn't really a stretch to me for the > -devel and related packages to be there too. > > o We get package owners to add perl-devel + co to their package > BuildRequires sections. > > We need to pick one of those three options (or a better one) and > communicate it to the Fedora community to proceed if we're going to use > the new perl for F7. I was quite happy to add BR: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or whatever's appropriate for a given module for the packages I maintain. I'm still happy to do this. I can understand the desire to put perl-devel in the buildroot given the lateness in the development cycle of the perl packaging change but only as a temporary thing for F7 and something that would be reverted for F8. Having the buildreqs correct in the packages has the be "the right thing to do" in the long term. Paul. From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 16:01:50 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:01:50 -0500 Subject: Breaking perl... In-Reply-To: <46239C97.8050707@city-fan.org> References: <46239C97.8050707@city-fan.org> Message-ID: <1176739310.3970.320.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 16:56 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > I was quite happy to add BR: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or whatever's > appropriate for a given module for the packages I maintain. I'm still > happy to do this. > > I can understand the desire to put perl-devel in the buildroot given the > lateness in the development cycle of the perl packaging change but only > as a temporary thing for F7 and something that would be reverted for F8. > Having the buildreqs correct in the packages has the be "the right thing > to do" in the long term. Yes, I agree with this too, I just don't want to add stress to the F-7 cycle. We can drop perl-devel from the buildroot defaults in devel, F-8+. ~spot From rc040203 at freenet.de Mon Apr 16 16:12:27 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:12:27 +0200 Subject: Breaking perl... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1176739947.31298.128.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 11:37 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote: > So, > > I was waiting for feedback on the latest iteration of the perl spec file > before proceeding, but I haven't really gotten any - I guess people are > generally busy with their day jobs, etc. > [3 proposals] That's what I've been enforcing in recent reviews is users to BR those perl(XX) modules their packages actually require when building. The advantage of this approach would be long term stability, because packages then would use their "real requirements" instead of rpm helper "properties" (such as "perl-devel") between which "real requirements" could be moved at any time. > We need to pick one of those three options (or a better one) and > communicate it to the Fedora community to proceed if we're going to use > the new perl for F7. One detail I am not yet clear about: Shall Fedora be allowed to provide separate perl modules, which also are available as separate CPAN packages, but so far have been built as part of the main perl src.rpm? If yes, how? What would be the restrictions on EVR? Ralf From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 16:36:02 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:36:02 -0500 Subject: Breaking perl... In-Reply-To: <1176739947.31298.128.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1176739947.31298.128.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1176741362.3970.339.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 18:12 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 11:37 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote: > > So, > > > > I was waiting for feedback on the latest iteration of the perl spec file > > before proceeding, but I haven't really gotten any - I guess people are > > generally busy with their day jobs, etc. > > > [3 proposals] > > That's what I've been enforcing in recent reviews is users to BR those > perl(XX) modules their packages actually require when building. > > > The advantage of this approach would be long term stability, because > packages then would use their "real requirements" instead of rpm helper > "properties" (such as "perl-devel") between which "real requirements" > could be moved at any time. *nod* perl-devel is really only "the devel files for perl(Core)". The fact that it depends on all the other perl-included modules (e.g. CPAN) is convenient, but not a long term fix. > One detail I am not yet clear about: > > Shall Fedora be allowed to provide separate perl modules, which also are > available as separate CPAN packages, but so far have been built as part > of the main perl src.rpm? > > If yes, how? What would be the restrictions on EVR? My concern is that a newer version of a module that came bundled with perl won't work well (or at all) with that version of perl. If we update past it and perl stops working as expected (or won't rebuild properly), we're in dire straits. ~spot From rnorwood at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 17:58:03 2007 From: rnorwood at redhat.com (Robin Norwood) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:58:03 -0400 Subject: Breaking perl... In-Reply-To: <1176739310.3970.320.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Tom Callaway's message of "Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:01:50 -0500") References: <46239C97.8050707@city-fan.org> <1176739310.3970.320.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" writes: > On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 16:56 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > >> I was quite happy to add BR: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or whatever's >> appropriate for a given module for the packages I maintain. I'm still >> happy to do this. >> >> I can understand the desire to put perl-devel in the buildroot given the >> lateness in the development cycle of the perl packaging change but only >> as a temporary thing for F7 and something that would be reverted for F8. >> Having the buildreqs correct in the packages has the be "the right thing >> to do" in the long term. > > Yes, I agree with this too, I just don't want to add stress to the F-7 > cycle. We can drop perl-devel from the buildroot defaults in devel, > F-8+. Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files fixed for F8. I'll get an email together to fedora devel list explaining the changes and asking for feedback. We should also update the perl packaging guidelines wiki page(s). Spot, I think you own those - do you want to make the change (perl packages should now BR perl-devel + co), or shall I? -RN -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 18:04:27 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:04:27 -0500 Subject: Breaking perl... In-Reply-To: References: <46239C97.8050707@city-fan.org> <1176739310.3970.320.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1176746667.3970.354.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 13:58 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote: > "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" writes: > > > On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 16:56 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > >> I was quite happy to add BR: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or whatever's > >> appropriate for a given module for the packages I maintain. I'm still > >> happy to do this. > >> > >> I can understand the desire to put perl-devel in the buildroot given the > >> lateness in the development cycle of the perl packaging change but only > >> as a temporary thing for F7 and something that would be reverted for F8. > >> Having the buildreqs correct in the packages has the be "the right thing > >> to do" in the long term. > > > > Yes, I agree with this too, I just don't want to add stress to the F-7 > > cycle. We can drop perl-devel from the buildroot defaults in devel, > > F-8+. > > Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add > the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files > fixed for F8. I'll get an email together to fedora devel list > explaining the changes and asking for feedback. We should also update > the perl packaging guidelines wiki page(s). Spot, I think you own those > - do you want to make the change (perl packages should now BR perl-devel > + co), or shall I? I'll do it. ~spot From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu Mon Apr 16 20:01:27 2007 From: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu (Chris Weyl) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:01:27 -0700 Subject: Breaking perl... In-Reply-To: References: <46239C97.8050707@city-fan.org> <1176739310.3970.320.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7dd7ab490704161301r18752e80lb45d95fc8f05db10@mail.gmail.com> On 4/16/07, Robin Norwood wrote: > Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add > the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files > fixed for F8. I'll get an email together to fedora devel list > explaining the changes and asking for feedback. We should also update > the perl packaging guidelines wiki page(s). Spot, I think you own those > - do you want to make the change (perl packages should now BR perl-devel > + co), or shall I? Wait -- I thought needing to BR perl-devel explicitly was something we were trying to avoid (for portability, among other reasons). Have we moved away from that? -Chris -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 20:18:40 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:18:40 -0500 Subject: Breaking perl... In-Reply-To: <7dd7ab490704161301r18752e80lb45d95fc8f05db10@mail.gmail.com> References: <46239C97.8050707@city-fan.org> <1176739310.3970.320.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dd7ab490704161301r18752e80lb45d95fc8f05db10@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1176754720.3970.362.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 13:01 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: > On 4/16/07, Robin Norwood wrote: > > Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add > > the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files > > fixed for F8. I'll get an email together to fedora devel list > > explaining the changes and asking for feedback. We should also update > > the perl packaging guidelines wiki page(s). Spot, I think you own those > > - do you want to make the change (perl packages should now BR perl-devel > > + co), or shall I? > > Wait -- I thought needing to BR perl-devel explicitly was something we > were trying to avoid (for portability, among other reasons). Have we > moved away from that? Well, not BR perl-devel, but BR the perl components your package actually need. ~spot From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu Mon Apr 16 20:23:18 2007 From: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu (Chris Weyl) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:23:18 -0700 Subject: Breaking perl... In-Reply-To: <1176754720.3970.362.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <46239C97.8050707@city-fan.org> <1176739310.3970.320.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dd7ab490704161301r18752e80lb45d95fc8f05db10@mail.gmail.com> <1176754720.3970.362.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7dd7ab490704161323i10aefca0h50dd846fef56f8c8@mail.gmail.com> On 4/16/07, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 13:01 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: > > On 4/16/07, Robin Norwood wrote: > > > Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add > > > the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files > > > fixed for F8. I'll get an email together to fedora devel list > > > explaining the changes and asking for feedback. We should also update > > > the perl packaging guidelines wiki page(s). Spot, I think you own those > > > - do you want to make the change (perl packages should now BR perl-devel > > > + co), or shall I? > > > > Wait -- I thought needing to BR perl-devel explicitly was something we > > were trying to avoid (for portability, among other reasons). Have we > > moved away from that? > > Well, not BR perl-devel, but BR the perl components your package > actually need. Ok, cool. I was hoping that was the case :) -Chris -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 20:57:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:57:22 -0400 Subject: [Bug 236631] New: Please build perl-Unix-Syslog for EL4 Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236631 Summary: Please build perl-Unix-Syslog for EL4 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: el4 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl-Unix-Syslog AssignedTo: steve at silug.org ReportedBy: redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Description of problem: Please build perl-Unix-Syslog for EL4, because my package mimedefang depends on it. As sendmail and mimedefang are a usual combination, the mimedefang package should be available for EL4. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): perl-Unix-Syslog-0.100-8 Expected results: perl-Unix-Syslog in EL4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 20:58:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:58:18 -0400 Subject: [Bug 236632] New: Please build perl-Unix-Syslog for EL5 Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236632 Summary: Please build perl-Unix-Syslog for EL5 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: el5 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl-Unix-Syslog AssignedTo: steve at silug.org ReportedBy: redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Description of problem: Please build perl-Unix-Syslog for EL5, because my package mimedefang depends on it. As sendmail and mimedefang are a usual combination, the mimedefang package should be available for EL5. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): perl-Unix-Syslog-0.100-8 Expected results: perl-Unix-Syslog in EL5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 22:17:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:17:44 -0400 Subject: [Bug 236632] Please build perl-Unix-Syslog for EL5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704162217.l3GMHiVV000669@bugzilla.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: Please build perl-Unix-Syslog for EL5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236632 steve at silug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From steve at silug.org 2007-04-16 18:17 EST ------- Done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 22:18:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:18:08 -0400 Subject: [Bug 236631] Please build perl-Unix-Syslog for EL4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704162218.l3GMI8jV000795@bugzilla.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: Please build perl-Unix-Syslog for EL4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236631 steve at silug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From steve at silug.org 2007-04-16 18:18 EST ------- Done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Apr 17 03:14:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:14:53 -0400 Subject: [Bug 232481] EPEL branches: a couple of perl packages from fedora.us In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704170314.l3H3ErJ0015690@bugzilla.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: EPEL branches: a couple of perl packages from fedora.us https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232481 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Apr 17 04:07:11 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:07:11 +0200 Subject: Breaking perl... In-Reply-To: References: <46239C97.8050707@city-fan.org> <1176739310.3970.320.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1176782831.31298.146.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 13:58 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote: > "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" writes: > > > On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 16:56 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > >> I was quite happy to add BR: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or whatever's > >> appropriate for a given module for the packages I maintain. I'm still > >> happy to do this. > >> > >> I can understand the desire to put perl-devel in the buildroot given the > >> lateness in the development cycle of the perl packaging change but only > >> as a temporary thing for F7 and something that would be reverted for F8. > >> Having the buildreqs correct in the packages has the be "the right thing > >> to do" in the long term. > > > > Yes, I agree with this too, I just don't want to add stress to the F-7 > > cycle. We can drop perl-devel from the buildroot defaults in devel, > > F-8+. > > Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add > the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files > fixed for F8. Hmm - Why so reluctant/hesitant? Why not "_not_ _adding_ them to the buildroots"? A "not-so-unlikely-to-happen" mass-rebuild to happen before F7's release or individual future package upgrades then would likely catch them all when "they are not present in the buildroots for F7". With a little mutal collaboration from perl-package maintainers (and ACL's widely disabled) this would largely be a mechanical process. Ralf From rnorwood at redhat.com Tue Apr 17 15:23:50 2007 From: rnorwood at redhat.com (Robin Norwood) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:23:50 -0400 Subject: Breaking perl... In-Reply-To: <7dd7ab490704161323i10aefca0h50dd846fef56f8c8@mail.gmail.com> (Chris Weyl's message of "Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:23:18 -0700") References: <46239C97.8050707@city-fan.org> <1176739310.3970.320.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dd7ab490704161301r18752e80lb45d95fc8f05db10@mail.gmail.com> <1176754720.3970.362.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dd7ab490704161323i10aefca0h50dd846fef56f8c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: "Chris Weyl" writes: > On 4/16/07, Tom spot Callaway wrote: >> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 13:01 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: >> > On 4/16/07, Robin Norwood wrote: >> > > Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add >> > > the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files >> > > fixed for F8. I'll get an email together to fedora devel list >> > > explaining the changes and asking for feedback. We should also update >> > > the perl packaging guidelines wiki page(s). Spot, I think you own those >> > > - do you want to make the change (perl packages should now BR perl-devel >> > > + co), or shall I? >> > >> > Wait -- I thought needing to BR perl-devel explicitly was something we >> > were trying to avoid (for portability, among other reasons). Have we >> > moved away from that? >> >> Well, not BR perl-devel, but BR the perl components your package >> actually need. > > Ok, cool. I was hoping that was the case :) Oh, yeah, sorry. What he said ^. :-) -RN -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching From rnorwood at redhat.com Tue Apr 17 15:52:15 2007 From: rnorwood at redhat.com (Robin Norwood) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:52:15 -0400 Subject: Breaking perl... In-Reply-To: <1176782831.31298.146.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> (Ralf Corsepius's message of "Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:07:11 +0200") References: <46239C97.8050707@city-fan.org> <1176739310.3970.320.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1176782831.31298.146.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: Ralf Corsepius writes: > On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 13:58 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote: [...] >> Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add >> the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files >> fixed for F8. > Hmm - Why so reluctant/hesitant? Why not "_not_ _adding_ them to the > buildroots"? > > A "not-so-unlikely-to-happen" mass-rebuild to happen before F7's release > or individual future package upgrades then would likely catch them all > when "they are not present in the buildroots for F7". > > With a little mutal collaboration from perl-package maintainers (and > ACL's widely disabled) this would largely be a mechanical process. This is certainly another way to go - in fact, I'd generally prefer to experience all the pain now than later. The only thing is, I'm a coward and I don't want to have to hide from a crowd of perl-package-owning peasants outside my door. If I can just give them directions to your house, I'd be fine with that. Seriously, though, which way should we go with this? There will probably be minor grumbling either way, but I don't think it will really be that big a deal, so long as we communicate The Plan. -RN -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Apr 18 21:55:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:55:30 -0400 Subject: [Bug 237025] New: perl-Text-CSV_XS: EPEL branches? Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237025 Summary: perl-Text-CSV_XS: EPEL branches? Product: Fedora Extras Version: fc6 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl-Text-CSV_XS AssignedTo: jpo at di.uminho.pt ReportedBy: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com It would be useful to me to have this package in EPEL... Any chance of EL-4, EL-5 branches? :) Review is bug 175898. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Apr 19 22:26:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:26:46 -0400 Subject: [Bug 237197] New: perl-File-Slurp: EL-4, EL-5 branches? Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237197 Summary: perl-File-Slurp: EL-4, EL-5 branches? Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl-File-Slurp AssignedTo: rc040203 at freenet.de ReportedBy: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com It would be useful to me to have this package under RHEL4 and 5. Any chance I can prevail upon you to build for those distros, as well? (perl-File-Slurp's review is bug 167282.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Apr 20 04:06:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:06:05 -0400 Subject: [Bug 237197] perl-File-Slurp: EL-4, EL-5 branches? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704200406.l3K465GO016085@bugzilla.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: perl-File-Slurp: EL-4, EL-5 branches? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237197 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-04-20 00:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #0) > It would be useful to me to have this package under RHEL4 and 5. Any chance I > can prevail upon you to build for those distros, as well? > > (perl-File-Slurp's review is bug 167282.) Short answer: No, I do not support EPEL. Longer answer: I am not supporting EPEL. Primarily, because I am not using EPEL. More generally, * technically, I do not feel able to support RHEL, because of the additional technical constraints EPEL imposes (ABIs, longevity etc). Additionally, I think, EPEL contradicts the objectives of RHEL (stability, longevity). * politically, 1. I refuse to provide a non-free commercial distribution (such as RHEL) to make it match user-demands better. It means nothing else but the vendor (RH) not meeting these user's demands. IMO, people wanting to use Fedora packages on RHEL should feel encouraged to switching distros, e.g. to Fedora. 2. I consider Fedora EPEL to be undermining Fedora's objectives. It causes users not to use Fedora but to pay _RH_ for their commercial base-distro. More radically formulated: EPEL helps RH to outsource development resources, but doesn't help Fedora. In a nutshell: I consider EPEL to be RH's business, not the communities. I see 3 alternatives: 1. You take over perl-File-Slurp for all of Fedora and EPEL. 2. You maintain it for EPEL and I do so for Fedora. 3. This package doesn't make it into EPEL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Apr 20 15:45:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:45:34 -0400 Subject: [Bug 237252] minor error in amavis-clamd.conf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704201545.l3KFjYNC026538@bugzilla.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: minor error in amavis-clamd.conf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237252 enrico.scholz at informatik.tu-chemnitz.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|enrico.scholz at informatik.tu-|steve at silug.org |chemnitz.de | CC| |fedora-perl-devel- | |list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Apr 22 14:23:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:23:06 -0400 Subject: [Bug 237421] New: Bad cpuTime retrieved from Sys::Virt::Domain->get_info Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237421 Summary: Bad cpuTime retrieved from Sys::Virt::Domain->get_info Product: Fedora Extras Version: fc6 Platform: i686 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl-Sys-Virt AssignedTo: steve at silug.org ReportedBy: g+fedora at pkg.fr QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: berrange at redhat.com,fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Description of problem: I tried the API on a AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3000+, I got bad values with some negative one for the cpuTime of a domain. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): perl-Sys-Virt-0.1.1 How reproducible: every time Steps to Reproduce: 1. Run a server with some xen domains 2. Try the example included in the package: /usr/share/doc/perl-Sys-Virt-0.1.1/examples/dump-info.pl 3. Observe the "cpuTime" values Actual results: False Expected results: Good Additional info: I search the sources and I found this value is in fact unsigned long long value in libvirt library to represent nanoseconds (cf http://libvirt.org/html/libvirt-libvirt.html#virDomainInfo). I didn't try on a 64 bits arch but I think the it could work on it. I managed to obtain the expected results by patching the sources: I edit Virt.xs from the source and changed the line 359 from: hv_store (RETVAL, "cpuTime", 7, newSViv(info.cpuTime), 0); to hv_store (RETVAL, "cpuTime", 7, newSVnv(info.cpuTime), 0); So the unsigned long long is read as a float scalar and not an integer scalar. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 23 11:55:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:55:49 -0400 Subject: [Bug 228429] mod_perl errantly provides perl(warnings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704231155.l3NBtnfT032554@bugzilla.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: mod_perl errantly provides perl(warnings) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228429 bugzilla at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|normal |medium jorton at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Fixed In Version| |2.0.3-9 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-04-23 07:55 EST ------- Thanks for the report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 23 20:07:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:07:05 -0400 Subject: [Bug 237564] New: perl-5.8.8-16.2 missing ExtUtils BuildRequires Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237564 Summary: perl-5.8.8-16.2 missing ExtUtils BuildRequires Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl AssignedTo: rnorwood at redhat.com ReportedBy: wtogami at redhat.com QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com We might have missed this if the minimum buildgroup includes this by default, but you may want to include the appropriate BuildRequires in perl.spec too so manual builds succeed. RPM build errors: File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Embed.pm File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Command File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Install.pm File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Installed.pm File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Liblist File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Liblist.pm File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MakeMaker File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MakeMaker.pm File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MANIFEST.SKIP File not found by glob: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MM*.pm File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MY.pm File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Manifest.pm File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Mkbootstrap.pm File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Mksymlists.pm File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/NOTES File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Packlist.pm File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/PATCHING File not found: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/testlib.pm File not found by glob: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/Harness* File not found by glob: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/More* File not found by glob: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/Builder* File not found by glob: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/Simple* File not found by glob: /var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-17.fc7-root-builder2/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/Tutorial* -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 23 21:51:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:51:47 -0400 Subject: [Bug 237594] New: Upgrade to SVK 2.0.1 Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237594 Summary: Upgrade to SVK 2.0.1 Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl-SVK AssignedTo: ianburrell at gmail.com ReportedBy: ianburrell at gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 23 21:52:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:52:30 -0400 Subject: [Bug 237594] Upgrade to SVK 2.0.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704232152.l3NLqUej021739@bugzilla.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: Upgrade to SVK 2.0.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237594 ianburrell at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |232018 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Apr 24 05:06:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Bug 237612] New: WWW::Bugzilla fails to fetch bug Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237612 Summary: WWW::Bugzilla fails to fetch bug Product: Fedora Extras Version: fc6 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl-WWW-Bugzilla AssignedTo: jpo at di.uminho.pt ReportedBy: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Description of problem: WWW::Bugzilla fails to fetch bug with: Can't locate object method "form" via package "WWW::Mechanize" at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/WWW/Bugzilla.pm line 271. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): perl-WWW-Mechanize-1.22-2.fc6 perl-WWW-Bugzilla-0.8-1.fc6 How reproducible: Attempt to open an existing bug. Actual results: *boom* (see above) Expected results: A valid WWW::Bugzilla object to manipulate the given bug. Additional info: It appears WWW::Bugzilla 0.9 fixes this. Should be an easyfix as 0.9 is already available in devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Apr 25 15:17:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Bug 237564] perl-5.8.8-16.2 missing ExtUtils BuildRequires In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704251517.l3PFHATT005707@bugzilla.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: perl-5.8.8-16.2 missing ExtUtils BuildRequires https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237564 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-04-25 11:16 EST ------- This is the same as bug #226276, comment #26. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 226276 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu Fri Apr 27 17:18:03 2007 From: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu (Chris Weyl) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:18:03 -0700 Subject: Test::Pod::Coverage tests... Message-ID: <7dd7ab490704271018t6a2ef883q88e6944a7e54c1c9@mail.gmail.com> Hey all-- So there's a rather spirited discussion perl packaging discussion going on over at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237883 about Test::Pod::Coverage module tests, and their importance. The canonical approach is to insist on all tests being enabled that possibly can -- even to the point of requiring other modules be packaged to enable these tests. "Test as much as possible." Test::Pod::Coverage tests don't actually test the functionality of the module. Further, they can't tell you if that documentation is any good, or even plain wrong. We also have a practice of disabling this test out of hand if it fails for whatever reason... Further, usually upstream takes the step of explicitly requiring this test be enabled -- e.g. via TEST_POD=1 or some other mechanism. Documentation coverage is a good Kwalitee indication (as they say), not always an indication of good quality -- and certainly not a consistent, reliable indication of that. My opinion is that we ought to not mandate the use of Pod coverage tests, simply because for our purposes it doesn't really matter what their result is. If they're present, we should conditionalize the tests (e.g. %_with_pod_tests magic or some such), but not insist on them by default. Either way, we ought to document this in Packaging/Perl -- which I took a quick (and probably dirty) pass at reworking under PackagingDrafts/Perl. -Chris -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu Fri Apr 27 17:21:55 2007 From: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu (Chris Weyl) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:21:55 -0700 Subject: perl vs %{__perl} Message-ID: <7dd7ab490704271021q17decaf7nd19c275715712ef9@mail.gmail.com> ...and along the same lines, is there benefit to using %{__perl} vs just plain "perl" or "/usr/bin/perl" in spec files? I generally try to avoid the macro-ised versions of utils, but it sounds like there may be benefit to this. (See also BZ#237883) -Chris -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia From steve at silug.org Fri Apr 27 18:44:26 2007 From: steve at silug.org (Steven Pritchard) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:44:26 -0500 Subject: perl vs %{__perl} In-Reply-To: <7dd7ab490704271021q17decaf7nd19c275715712ef9@mail.gmail.com> References: <7dd7ab490704271021q17decaf7nd19c275715712ef9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070427184426.GA18477@osiris.silug.org> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 10:21:55AM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: > ...and along the same lines, is there benefit to using %{__perl} vs > just plain "perl" or "/usr/bin/perl" in spec files? I generally try > to avoid the macro-ised versions of utils, but it sounds like there > may be benefit to this. (See also BZ#237883) Theoretically using the macro would make it easier for someone to build a package against a non-standard perl. (Redefining %{__perl}, %{perl_vendorlib}, and %{perl_vendorarch} should be all you'd need for most modules...) Steve -- Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc. Email: steve at kspei.com http://www.kspei.com/ Phone: (618)398-3000 Mobile: (618)567-7320 From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Apr 27 22:29:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:29:54 -0400 Subject: [Bug 238205] New: upgrade to ver 0.9 of HTTP::Body? Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238205 Summary: upgrade to ver 0.9 of HTTP::Body? Product: Fedora Extras Version: fc6 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl-HTTP-Body AssignedTo: tcallawa at redhat.com ReportedBy: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com The next level of Catalyst::Runtime (which I'm working on getting into Fedora) will require 0.9 of HTTP::Body. Could I prevail upon you to update to that level in fe5+? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Apr 30 03:18:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:18:27 -0400 Subject: [Bug 238205] upgrade to ver 0.9 of HTTP::Body? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200704300318.l3U3IREX021603@bugzilla.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: upgrade to ver 0.9 of HTTP::Body? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238205 tcallawa at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2007-04-29 23:18 EST ------- Absolutely. Builds requested this evening for 0.9 for FC5, FC6, devel. Thanks for pointing it out. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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.