Bug 188293

I can get started with the specfile, but the review process requires an SRPM
instead of one that's been built.  Could you send one along?

Package builds fine in mock and rpmlint is silent.

Issues:
Can't check a couple of things due to lack of SRPM.
%description seems to be from another package.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
X specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and
conforms to the Perl template.  However, the description seems to be the one
from the perl-Finance-Quote package.
* 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.
X can't check whether source file matches upstream without SRPM.
* package builds in mock.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directory it creates.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is 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.
* The package owns %{perl_vendorlib}/HTML, which will probably also be owned by
any module under the HTML:: namespace.  However, there are no dependencies which
could create this directory so there is no alternative but for this package to
own it.

Heh, I uploaded the wrong RPM. SRPM there now, with fixed description and
license tag.

Cool.

* Source matches upstream:
   ad3ddfb3e25826071d1e52e336862438  HTML-TableExtract-2.07.tar.gz
   ad3ddfb3e25826071d1e52e336862438  HTML-TableExtract-2.07.tar.gz-srpm

Description looks good.

APPROVED

Please add additional buildreqs:

perl(HTML::TreeBuilder)
perl(Test::Pod)
perl(Test::Pod::Coverage)

All are available in Extras and will provide additional test coverage.

Yuk, so I have to have 7 random perl modules around just to run a test suite
that doesn't affect the actual build output?

Note that the HTML tests actually require HTML::ElementTable on top of
TreeBuilder, and that's not in Extras, so adding the req doesn't help there.

(In reply to comment #6)
> Yuk, so I have to have 7 random perl modules around just to run a test suite
> that doesn't affect the actual build output?

It would affect the build output if one of the tests failed, which might happen
for instance when the package came to be built on an architecture you can't test
yourself.

The modules concerned are all available in Extras so there's no real hardship in
installing them, and if you don't want them around on a long-term basis you
could always "rpm -e" them afterwards. Better still, you could do test builds in
mock and then those modules would never need to be installed on your system at all.

Most of the perl module packages I've come across in Extras have buildreqs for
all modules used in their test suites that are available in Core or Extras,

> Note that the HTML tests actually require HTML::ElementTable on top of
> TreeBuilder, and that's not in Extras, so adding the req doesn't help there.

That's why I didn't ask you to include that one as a buildreq :-) Unless you'd
like to package that one too...

Added, -2 uploaded.

This package is already approved; you can check it in at your leisure.

This bug should be closed NEXTRELEASE if the package was checked in and the
builds succeeded.

Built.

Package Change Request
----------------------
Package: perl-HTML-TableExtract
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5

CVS done.