Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at
Bug 188293 - Review Request: perl-HTML-TableExtract
Summary: Review Request: perl-HTML-TableExtract
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jason Tibbitts
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT 188261
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2006-04-07 17:38 UTC by Bill Nottingham
Modified: 2014-03-17 02:59 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-06-12 20:20:40 UTC
Type: ---
j: fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Bill Nottingham 2006-04-07 17:38:02 UTC
Spec Name or Url:
SRPM Name or Url:
Description: A perl module that extracts tables. Needed for perl-Finance-Quote.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2006-04-07 21:10:19 UTC
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?

Comment 2 Jason Tibbitts 2006-04-07 21:52:06 UTC
Package builds fine in mock and rpmlint is silent.

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

* 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.

Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2006-04-08 03:10:13 UTC
Heh, I uploaded the wrong RPM. SRPM there now, with fixed description and
license tag.

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2006-04-08 03:19:43 UTC

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

Description looks good.


Comment 5 Paul Howarth 2006-04-10 10:01:55 UTC
Please add additional buildreqs:


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

Comment 6 Bill Nottingham 2006-04-10 20:43:03 UTC
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.

Comment 7 Paul Howarth 2006-04-11 08:59:45 UTC
(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

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...

Comment 8 Bill Nottingham 2006-04-11 16:56:15 UTC
Added, -2 uploaded.

Comment 9 Jason Tibbitts 2006-04-11 17:04:07 UTC
This package is already approved; you can check it in at your leisure.

Comment 10 Jason Tibbitts 2006-04-13 13:30:08 UTC
This bug should be closed NEXTRELEASE if the package was checked in and the
builds succeeded.

Comment 11 Bill Nottingham 2006-04-19 16:18:10 UTC

Comment 12 Bill Nottingham 2007-06-12 04:01:35 UTC
Package Change Request
Package: perl-HTML-TableExtract
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5

Comment 13 Jason Tibbitts 2007-06-12 20:20:40 UTC
CVS done.

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