https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679
Bug ID: 838679 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: el6 Priority: unspecified CC: jpo@di.uminho.pt, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: jpo@di.uminho.pt Summary: perl-Plack: EL-6 build Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: jpo@di.uminho.pt Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: perl-Plack Product: Fedora EPEL
Summary: Description of the problems that need to be solved in order to build perl-Plack for EPEL-6:
* missing perl module in PPC64 * perl module too old in the main RHEL repositories * system perl too old in the main RHEL repositories
Additional info: Previous work done on ticket (#729504):
* perl-Dancer: please update to version 1.3071 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729504
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679
--- Comment #1 from Jose Pedro Oliveira jpo@di.uminho.pt --- Problems:
* system perl is too old for certain packages
RHEL6 ships with perl 5.10.1
* The core perl module Test::More is definitely too old; this is also a core RHEL package (perl-Test-Simple-0.92)
Lots of perl modules require a more recent version of Test::More in order to successfully run their test suites.
* perl-Authen-Simple, which is already available in epel-testing, requires perl(Crypt::PasswdMD5) and this module isn't available in the RHEL PPC64 repositories.
I'm amazed how koji allowed me to build and push to epel-6-testing perl-Authen-Simple-0.4-5.el6 and perl-Authen-Simple-Passwd-0.6-2.el6.
Possible solution: build for EPEL6 the RHEL perl package but with a lower release number.
* perl-Devel-StackTrace-AsHTML: IIRC requires a more recent version of perl-Devel-StackTrace than the one available in the RHEL optional channels
* some versions of perl-Plack can be build if: 1) the Devel-StackTrace-AsHTML module is built without running its test suite 2) the version is dropped from the Devel-StackStrace build requirement
Build status of perl-Plack packages (several months old): - perl-Plack-0.9974-2 (OK) - perl-Plack-0.9977-1 (fails to build) - perl-Plack-0.9980-1 (test warnings) - perl-Plack-0.9982-1 (OK) - perl-Plack-0.9984-1 (OK)
* perl-Dancer 1.3071 - which requires perl-Plack - requires a more recent version of Test::More - the singleton test fails under perl 5.10.1 (?)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679
--- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot xavier@bachelot.org --- Thanks for the comprehensive summary. Looks like this will be a though one. About the missing PPC64 packages, this is a pain, but that can be dealt with. About the test suites, I think it should be acceptable to selectively disable tests that are failing because of the unmet dependencies. What do you think ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679
Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203@freenet.de
--- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de --- (In reply to comment #2)
About the test suites, I think it should be acceptable to selectively disable tests that are failing because of the unmet dependencies. What do you think ?
This may let packages get away with unnoticed bugs and issues. I'd consider this to be prohibitive, because Plack and its infrastructure are pretty comprehensive and security sensitive.
Openly said, based on what I went through on Fedora (A need to closely track the upstream versions of several perl-Plack perl dependency), I do not see much chances of getting Plack into epel6 without major general upgrades to many other epel6 perl-modules (and may-be perl itself).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679
--- Comment #4 from Jose Pedro Oliveira jpo@di.uminho.pt --- (In reply to comment #2)
Thanks for the comprehensive summary. Looks like this will be a though one. About the missing PPC64 packages, this is a pain, but that can be dealt with.
This problem appears to be the easiest to fix.
About the test suites, I think it should be acceptable to selectively disable tests that are failing because of the unmet dependencies. What do you think ?
I'm with Ralf on this one: we should strive to successfully run all the module tests.
In order to have perl-Plack in EPEL-6 we need to accomplish the following steps:
1) perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 needs to be in the EPEL-6 PPC64 repositories
Action: import and build perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 for EPEL-6 with a lower release than the one existing in the RHEL channels. TODO: check if there are modules missing in the PPC64 repos.
RHEL 6.x SRPM:
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Server/en/os/SRPMS/perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5-1.3-6.el6.src.rpm
2) perl-Devel-StackTrace needs to be updated to a more recent version (at least version 1.23)
RHEL 6.x SRPM:
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Server/en/os/SRPMS/perl-Devel-StackTrace-1.22-4.el6.src.rpm
3) perl-Test-Simple (Test::More) needs to be updated to a more recent version (ideally from version 0.92 to 0.98)
Caveats: The update must be done to the perl package; a patch - perl-update_Test-Simple.patch - needs to added
RHEL 6.x SRPM:
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Server/en/os/SRPMS/perl-5.10.1-127.el6.src.rpm
Although only the first two steps are really mandatory, the third is also highly recommend due to the complexity and security problems of the Plack stack (as Ralf pointed in the previous comment): several modules may need to be updated regularly and some of these updates will need a more recent version of Test::More.
I believe the first step can be performed by us. The second and the third steps will need to be performed by Red Hat packagers and most likely in sync with major RHEL releases.
/jpo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679
Jose Pedro Oliveira jpo@di.uminho.pt changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |783740
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679 Bug 838679 depends on bug 783740, which changed state.
Bug 783740 Summary: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 not available in RHEL 6 PPC64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783740
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679
--- Comment #5 from Clément OUDOT clem.oudot@gmail.com --- Hi,
I would like to know if we can hope to have Perl-Plack in EL6?
It seems step 1 is done (783740)
Is someone working on steps 2 and 3?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ppisar@redhat.com
--- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- Very probably nobody works on them. You would have to file a request to Red Hat's support and provide strong justification why rebaseing code that works for others is important. I believe support would recommend you Red Hat Software Collections where you can get recent perl and some other Perl modules.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679
--- Comment #7 from Clément OUDOT clem.oudot@gmail.com --- We need it to package LemonLDAP::NG (http://www.lemonldap-ng.org). It works on CentOS 7 but not on CentOS 6.
I was hoping Red Hat community could help us on this subject, without the need to use support.
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org