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 189043 - Review Request: perl-File-Fetch
Summary: Review Request: perl-File-Fetch
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: 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:
Last Closed: 2006-04-21 21:56:20 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Steven Pritchard 2006-04-14 23:59:33 UTC
Spec URL:
File::Fetch is a generic file fetching mechanism.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2006-04-15 06:27:39 UTC
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.

* 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.