[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-07 16:41:57 EDT --- perl-Verilog-3.100-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Verilog-3.100-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-07 16:42:01 EDT --- perl-Verilog-3.100-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Verilog-3.100-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-07 23:17:28 EDT --- perl-Verilog-3.100-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-07 23:17:00 EDT --- perl-Verilog-3.100-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-06 20:28:54 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386
--- Comment #7 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au 2009-01-05 17:24:20
EDT ---
#001:
Upstream said :
They should all be Artistic or LGPL+; I'll clean it up. I
think listing it as just artistic makes more sense as it
then matches other Perl packages.
#002:
%{perl_vendorarch}/auto/Verilog
will be
%{perl_vendorarch}/auto/Verilog/*
thanks Manuel
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au 2009-01-05 17:25:09 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Verilog Short Description: Verilog parsing routines Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 Owner: chitlesh -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||478759 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 --- Comment #5 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au 2009-01-03 14:24:17 EDT --- Updates http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/perl-Verilog-3.100-1.fc10.src.rpm http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/perl-Verilog.spec As from this %release: - this package is named perl-Verilog and no longer perl-verilog. Thereby, following upstream namings and follows the namings of perl-Verilog-Codegen and perl-Verilog-Readmem - upstream has renamed vpm and vppp as comment #3 pointerd - test suites are not included. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-03
16:23:43 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type according to spec: Artistic (same as perl)
License type according to source: unclear, probably (GPL+ or Artistic).
See also note 1
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 14c8c0227f290e7358fa8bb12f86f03bf2255f8f
Verilog-Perl-3.100.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[!] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
See note 2
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[*] Make test is OK
==
Notes
==
1. It's a bit unclear to me what license the programmer wants to use. All
source files written in Perl start with:
// Copyright 2000-2009 by Wilson Snyder. This program is free software;
// you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either the GNU
// General Public License or the Perl Artistic License.
//
and end with:
Copyright 2000-2009 by Wilson Snyder. This package is free software; you
can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either the GNU
Lesser General Public License or the Perl Artistic License.
I am far from being an expert but IMHO using (artistic or GPL+) and (artistic
or LGPL+) does not fly because GPL and LGPL are specified in the same file. I
assume GPL+ takes precedence, but I strongly suggest to ask the author what's
the real intent (and maybe also adding the
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 --- Comment #4 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au 2008-12-20 14:58:26 EDT --- I've pushed this filename issue to upstream http://www.veripool.org/boards/28/topics/show/53 I'll update the package once upstream notifies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 --- Comment #2 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au 2008-12-14 07:08:30 EDT --- Updated: Spec URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/perl-verilog.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/perl-verilog-3.044-2.fc10.src.rpm Scratch build F-10: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=997864 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||476449 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 --- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-12-15 02:51:21 EDT --- Are you targeting only F10 ? Because the src.rpm from #2 still does not build in rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=998879 Note that according to http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=997866name=build.log, 'CP' is not a known MakeMaker parameter name. and therefore your little trick to preserve timestamps when using cp is ignored. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=997866name=perl-verilog-3.044-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm gives no less than 53 warnings in rpmlint, all of them being either spurious-executable-perm or doc-file-dependency. Could you please fix that ? I do not think that bringing in perl(Test) or perl(Data::Dumper) is a good idea: people wanting to run the tests could install the dependencies manually. A more delicate problem are the scripts named vpm and vppp. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Use_of_common_namespace , commands whose names are shorter than 5 letters should be avoided. Fortunately vpm does not seem to conflict with anything, but vppp is also the name of the Virtual PPP project by packagestorm and is also used by http://www.linux-kheops.com/pub/vppp/vpppGB.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-12-13 22:03:13 EDT --- There are some missing BR: + /usr/bin/perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor 'CP=/bin/cp -p' PREFIX=/usr %Error: 'flex' must be installed to build %Error: 'bison' must be installed to build %Error: Exiting due to above missing dependencies. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.pdWnhE (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.pdWnhE (%build) And according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing the license tag should be either Artistic(clarified) or Artistic 2.0, just Artistic is not valid. At the first glance, you should use Artistic(clarified) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
