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-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR Alias: php-pear-PCP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423 ------- Additional Comments From rpm@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-28 09:41 EST ------- Thanks for taking on the package Chris. (In reply to comment #9) > When this package is installed, the pear install and uninstall commands are > removed and the %post and %postun sections are not executed properly. This wasn't the case previously (and indeed right now I have it quite happily installed here without that problem) so there is something environment-specific about this, but by sheer coincidence I noticed this myself on another machine this morning. Fixed upstream this morning in cvs.php.net so I will build a new version of this RPM when there is a new upstream ver. (In reply to comment #10) > Also, please change the License field to say just "PHP License" this is what > rpmlint will expect. I do not think this should happen, for the following reasons: a) The License field is supposed to be what the License is, not what rpmlint thinks it should be. If rpmlint doesn't know it, rpmlint needs fixing - not the package. That's not an argument against consistency, but is an argument for accuracy. See also (b) below. b) "The PHP License v3.01" is exactly what the current Core "php" package uses c) Noting the versioning of licenses is important. I'll rephrase and repeat what I said over in bug #196281, which is: We really ought to specify a version if the package specifies one, because otherwise if there's (say) a PHP License v4 in future with different terms, we would be misleading users by implying they could distribute it under the terms of v4 whereas the authors might have only specified v3. We should respect the author's license. Note for example that recent Core "php" packages have started explicitly mentioning license version. Now I will hold my hands up (as the upstream maintainer of this package) for not enforcing consistency upstream; all the source files mention 3.01 but the web page says "PHP License" and links to 2.02. That will also be fixed to be consistent for the upcoming 0.1.2. > A copy of the actual license should be included and added to %doc This is against the usual convention and directly conflicts with the advice I was given in bug #176733, the first PEAR package to be added to FE. -- 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