[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-13 16:38 EST --- Imported into CVS, branches created, and builds requested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-08 15:06 EST --- Well, the versioned dependency is completely meaningless in that case, so there's little point in having both. The dependency list is now: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(CGI) perl(CGI::Cookie) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Spec) perl(File::Temp) perl(File::Type) perl(FileHandle) perl(HTTP::Headers) perl(HTTP::Response) perl(HTTP::Status) perl(IO::Null) perl(OpenFrame) perl(OpenFrame::Argument::Blob) perl(OpenFrame::Cookie) perl(OpenFrame::Cookies) perl(OpenFrame::Object) perl(OpenFrame::Request) perl(OpenFrame::Response) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response) perl(Pipeline) perl(Pipeline::Production) perl(Pipeline::Segment) perl(base) perl(constant) perl(strict) Looks good; APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-08 12:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) > Unfortunately the dependency list includes: >perl(Pipeline) >perl(Pipeline) >= 2.00 > > which has been clarified to be a blocker since this review was started. For the record, I think that's silly. :-) It's fixed in -4 though. http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-OpenFrame-3.05-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-07 14:00 EST --- Yes, that looks reasonable; we now have some blanket statement of what the license is. Unfortunately the dependency list includes: perl(Pipeline) perl(Pipeline) >= 2.00 which has been clarified to be a blocker since this review was started. That is the only remaining issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-07 13:54 EST --- I'm not entirely sure how much of the email I should include in the package. (I had to reach the author via a third party. :-) I've included the relevant bit in a README.LICENSE in -3. Given that it is confirmation of the license statement in lib/OpenFrame/Argument/Blob.pm, I hope that's sufficient. http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-OpenFrame-3.05-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-29 10:51 EST --- Excellent. I suggest including that correspondence in the package; it should be approveable after that but I've lost the context so I'll have to recheck. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-29 10:34 EST --- I received the following message from the author: > Hi, > > > > I've been meaning to deal with this but I've not got around to it. > > The OpenFrame package is released under both the Artistic license and > > the GPL. > > > > When we have another release of the package I'll ensure there is a > > definitive license statement. > > > > Regards, > > James. > -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:43 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 00:16 EST --- I take it there's been no progress, which is too bad. The author still seems to be active and the Openframe author posted a blog just a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately I just can't find anything that would work as a blanket license for this package other than a statement that everything in the upstream SVN repository is released under an OSI-approved license. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 15:06 EST --- I saw the mention of the OSI-approved license thing on their web site, but that seems to be as specific as they get. Maybe I'll get lucky and someone authoritative will be at YAPC in a couple of weeks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 15:06 EST --- I saw the mention of the OSI-approved license thing on their web site, but that seems to be as specific as they get. Maybe I'll get lucky and someone authoritative will be at YAPC in a couple of weeks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 00:16 EST --- I take it there's been no progress, which is too bad. The author still seems to be active and the Openframe author posted a blog just a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately I just can't find anything that would work as a blanket license for this package other than a statement that everything in the upstream SVN repository is released under an OSI-approved license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 14:17 EST --- I've opened a ticket. http://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=19679 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 13:54 EST --- Nothing yet. I'll try to bug them some more today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-01 15:54 EST --- Any luck hearing back from the author? It kind of sucks to be blocked on this kind of thing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 Bug 192577 depends on bug 192575, which changed state. Bug 192575 Summary: Review Request: perl-Pipeline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192575 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-27 16:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > Only one of the files (lib/OpenFrame/Argument/Blob.pm) seems to have a > statement > of the license. I don't think that's enough to suggest the license for the > entire package. I've emailed the author (the one listed in that file anyway) for clarification. > I wonder about the need for these: > > Requires: perl(File::Type) >= 0.01 > Requires: perl(HTTP::Request) >= 0.01 > Requires: perl(IO::Null) >= 0.01 > > The versions are so low that they seem to have been put in as placeholders. > RPM > should figure out all of these on its own. (It doesn't find HTTP::Request but > it does find other modules, all provided by perl-libwww-perl.) Fixed in -2. > t/02http_request[OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response::OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response::dispatch] > no response available > at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Pipeline/Dispatch.pm line 74 > ok [...] > I'm not sure if the first is a mock artifact or a problem with the test suite. It happens when I'm not running under mock either. > t/98compile.skipped > all skipped: - do not have File::Find::Rule installed [...] > The second is fixed up with the obvious BR:. Also fixed in -2. http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-OpenFrame-3.05-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-26 00:21 EST --- Only one of the files (lib/OpenFrame/Argument/Blob.pm) seems to have a statement of the license. I don't think that's enough to suggest the license for the entire package. I wonder about the need for these: Requires: perl(File::Type) >= 0.01 Requires: perl(HTTP::Request) >= 0.01 Requires: perl(IO::Null) >= 0.01 The versions are so low that they seem to have been put in as placeholders. RPM should figure out all of these on its own. (It doesn't find HTTP::Request but it does find other modules, all provided by perl-libwww-perl.) Some issues from the test suite: t/02http_request[OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response::OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response::dispatch] no response available at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Pipeline/Dispatch.pm line 74 ok t/98compile.skipped all skipped: - do not have File::Find::Rule installed I'm not sure if the first is a mock artifact or a problem with the test suite. The second is fixed up with the obvious BR:. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. ? license field matches the actual license. ? license is open source-compatible. * source files match upstream: 6469544c6c83a0aa33676421cb09d1a5 OpenFrame-3.05.tar.gz 6469544c6c83a0aa33676421cb09d1a5 OpenFrame-3.05.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. ? final provides and requires are sane: perl(OpenFrame) perl(OpenFrame::Argument::Blob) perl(OpenFrame::Constants) perl(OpenFrame::Cookie) perl(OpenFrame::Cookies) perl(OpenFrame::Object) perl(OpenFrame::Request) perl(OpenFrame::Response) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::ContentLoader) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Request) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response) perl-OpenFrame = 3.05-1.fc6 - perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(CGI) perl(CGI::Cookie) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Spec) perl(File::Temp) perl(File::Type) perl(File::Type) >= 0.01 perl(FileHandle) perl(HTTP::Headers) perl(HTTP::Request) >= 0.01 perl(HTTP::Response) perl(HTTP::Status) perl(IO::Null) perl(IO::Null) >= 0.01 perl(OpenFrame) perl(OpenFrame::Argument::Blob) perl(OpenFrame::Cookie) perl(OpenFrame::Cookies) perl(OpenFrame::Object) perl(OpenFrame::Request) perl(OpenFrame::Response) perl(OpenFrame::Segment::HTTP::Response) perl(Pipeline) perl(Pipeline) >= 2.00 perl(Pipeline::Production) perl(Pipeline::Segment) perl(base) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings::register) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is present and all tests pass (after adding File::Find::Rule): All tests successful. Files=6, Tests=54, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.39 cusr + 0.16 csys = 0.55 CPU) * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 Bug 192577 depends on bug 192568, which changed state. Bug 192568 Summary: Review Request: perl-File-Type https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192568 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||192568, 192575 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
