Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-10 22:37 EST ------- I'd like to see some movement on these php-pear package reviews, but we have a distinct lack of packaging guidelines for PHP modules. Here are a few issues I noticed: "PEAR" in the summary isn't really descriptive; maybe something like "Abstracted logging facility for PHP" would make more sense. I guess RPM won't extract the php-pear(*) provides as it will for Perl, which is too bad. I wonder if it could be taught. Use "BuildArch:" instead of "BuildArchitectures:"; it lines up better. rpmlint disagrees with the overlong line in the description. Could you explain the comment in %prep? Perhaps rpmlint could be taught to do the sanity check so it doesn't have to live in the spec. Could you explain the comment in %postun? I think you might need Requires(post): php-pear and Requires(postun): php-pear (or is that php-pear(PEAR)?). Unfortunately I can't do a proper test because the updated php-pear isn't in FC5 yet and rawhide is broken at the moment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review