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-pecl-xdebug - PECL package for debugging PHP scripts Alias: php-pecl-xdebug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196749 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-09-06 13:00 EST ------- Unfortunately I've found one blocker and a couple more minor issues while running through my checklist. Your Release: violates the naming guidelines. The full NEVR should be: php-pecl-xdebug-2.0.0-0.1.beta6 Then you can increment the "1" for each package update until the actual 2.0.0 release comes out, at which time you can use 2.0.0-1. See "Pre-Release packages" in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines Also, we removed the requirement for Provides: php-xdebug from the guideline draft, so you should be able to remove it unless you have some reason to keep it in. The debuginfo package don't seem to contain the source. I'm not really sure why; debuginfo generation remains a mystery to most. It does seem to contain plenty of debug symbols, though, and this isn't a blocker in any case. * source files match upstream: 1ba82711d8f91c38c4b30a396cc2e72a xdebug-2.0.0beta6.tgz X package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). ? debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. ? final provides and requires are sane: config(php-pecl-xdebug) = 2.0.0-beta6.2.fc6 php-pecl(Xdebug) = 2.0.0-beta6.2.fc6 ? php-xdebug = 2.0.0-beta6.2.fc6 xdebug.so()(64bit) php-pecl-xdebug = 2.0.0-beta6.2.fc6 = config(php-pecl-xdebug) = 2.0.0-beta6.2.fc6 php-api = 20041225 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets 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. -- 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