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 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-11 12:40 EST ------- > Description used, is the one provide upstream on the package.xml. I must agree > it isn't very descriptive, but i don't know if it's a good idea to chance it. Upstream can be broken in many ways. We have to change the descriptions for Perl modules as well. Since the summary is the first thing the users will see, it must be as descriptive as possible in the 60 or so characters available. > For %prep. This comment is from pear template.spec Do we have a pear template in fedora-rpmdevtools? I don't see one. [sanity check] > Of course i can remove it, but it could be useful for people who want to rebuild > the RPM for another distro. We don't usually worry about that, but my point is that rpmlint is our sanity checker and it's worth discussing whether it should be taught to check for things like that. Are you targeting FC4 with these packages? If not, we should just require the unbuggy php-pear version once it has been released. I'm still waiting for either a buildable rawhide or the updated php-pear package in FC5 to do a full review. If anyone can answer the question of whether the scriptlets need Requires(post) and Requires(postun) dependencies, please chip in. -- 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