Test::Pod::Coverage tests...
by Chris Weyl
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
16 years, 11 months
Bugzilla 3.0 Perl Requirements
by Max Kanat-Alexander
Hey folks. Just wanted to let you know that Bugzilla 3.0 (which
should be out soon) has a few perl pre-reqs that aren't in Extras. One
of them is required:
Email-Send
And all of the others are optional but still useful:
Template-GD
Email-MIME-Attachment-Stripper
Email-Reply
In particular, Template-GD really should be in FE--it was
originally part of Template-Toolkit and was moved out in version 2.15.
I figured I'd let you know sooner rather than later, when users
kept asking you for the packages, or when you had to build them anyway
to build a new Bugzilla package. :-)
-Max
--
http://www.everythingsolved.com/
Competent, Friendly Bugzilla Services. And Everything Else, too.
16 years, 11 months
[Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|normal |medium
jpo(a)di.uminho.pt changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED
Keywords| |Reopened
Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |
------- Additional Comments From jpo(a)di.uminho.pt 2007-05-06 11:28 EST -------
(In reply to comment #39)
> ok, looks like they both built successfully. Finally done with this bug. :-)
Not yet ;)
You haven't built it for development (Fedora 7).
jpo
--
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.
16 years, 11 months
[Bug 237612] New: WWW::Bugzilla fails to fetch bug
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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(a)di.uminho.pt
ReportedBy: cweyl(a)alumni.drew.edu
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fedora-perl-devel-list(a)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.
16 years, 11 months
[Bug 239219] New: perl-PAR-Dist-0.22 is available
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=239219
Summary: perl-PAR-Dist-0.22 is available
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: perl-PAR-Dist
AssignedTo: ville.skytta(a)iki.fi
ReportedBy: fevapp(a)o2.pl
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fedora-perl-devel-list(a)redhat.com
perl-PAR-Dist-0.22 is already available. Repo version is 0.21.
Please update the 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.
16 years, 11 months
Catalyst status...
by Chris Weyl
So we're making good progress with the base Catalyst packages: all of
the packages Catalyst::Runtime depends on have been reviewed and have
been imported/built; in addition to Catalyst::Runtime, there are three
other packages which need to be reviewed before Catalyst::Devel can
be.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=238238
Beyond that, I suspect the next course of action would be to package
up the outstanding deps for Task::Catalyst::Tutorial... I've put the
output of this distro's deps (from my hacked version of cpanspec) up
at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl/Catalyst.
If anyone wants to help (*cough* recent emails *cough*), reviews are
always good; packaging up parts of Task::Catalyst::Tutorial and
submitting them would also be good (as I can help with reviews then).
Anyways, enjoy :)
-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
16 years, 11 months
[Bug 237594] New: Upgrade to SVK 2.0.1
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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(a)gmail.com
ReportedBy: ianburrell(a)gmail.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fedora-perl-devel-list(a)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.
16 years, 11 months
Catalyst / DBIx::Class / SQL::Translator
by Dave Cross
Last September there was some talk on this about getting Catalyst (and
therefore DBIx::Class and SQL::Translator) into Extras.
Was there any progress on this? And if people are help up through lack
of resources, is there anything I can do to help?
Cheers,
Dave...
16 years, 12 months