Bug 189043

Summary: Review Request: perl-File-Fetch
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Steven Pritchard <steve>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jason Tibbitts <j>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhide   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-04-21 21:56:20 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 188505, 188523, 188527, 189041    
Bug Blocks: 163779, 189048    

Description Steven Pritchard 2006-04-14 23:59:33 UTC 
Spec URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-File-Fetch/perl-File-Fetch.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-File-Fetch-0.07-1.src.rpm
Description:
File::Fetch is a generic file fetching mechanism.
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2006-04-15 06:27:39 UTC 
Issues:
Three buildrequires duplicate what RPM detects automatically.  In the changelog
I see that you deleted one duplicate Requires: statement; why that one and not
the three others.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and
conforms to the Perl template.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  It's not included separately in the
package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it.
* source files match upstream:
   53135c09fa15e9cb0a980b153b9634e0  File-Fetch-0.07.tar.gz
   53135c09fa15e9cb0a980b153b9634e0  File-Fetch-0.07.tar.gz-srpm
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock.
* rpmlint is silent.
X final provides and requires are sane.
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directory it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is (essentially) not 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.
Comment 2 Jason Tibbitts 2006-04-16 05:04:46 UTC 
In light of other discussion I'll drop my objection.  APPROVED.
Comment 3 Steven Pritchard 2006-04-21 21:56:20 UTC 
Imported, branches created, and builds requested.