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-Date - PEAR: Date and Time Zone Classes Alias: php-pear-Date https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197411 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-09-07 00:58 EST ------- rpmlint complains: W: php-pear-Date dangerous-command-in-%post install but this is obviously bogus. Hopefully rpmlint will eventually be fixed to stop complaining about this as going to show up in every pear package. There seems to be a test suite included in the tarball. Is it possible to call it? It looks like many of the tests need an external mopdule called PHPUnit.php and I don't know enough about PHP to get the paths set up properly. The test suite question is the only thing that keeps me from approving this. The spec itself and the template it came from are quite clean and should work great in practise. * source files match upstream: 9acd7e19d094877c6d26be1fbabe79cb Date-1.4.6.tgz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * specfile follows the suggested PHP-Pear specfile template currently under development. * 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. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint has only bogus complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: php-pear(Date) = 1.4.6 php-pear-Date = 1.4.6-1.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/pear php-pear(PEAR) ? %check is not present, but there are some tests upstream. * 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. * scriptlets present are OK (PEAR module installation) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- 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