Bug 189043 - Review Request: perl-File-Fetch
Summary: Review Request: perl-File-Fetch
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jason Tibbitts
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 188505 188523 188527 189041
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT 189048
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-04-14 23:59 UTC by Steven Pritchard
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-04-21 21:56:20 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.