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 2006-09-09 21:20 EST ------- Sorry about the version number cock-up. > Please remove "PEAR:" from the summary in the template.spec I've debated with myself about this one and put it in/took it out several times. My general feeling is that it gives the "right" answer more times with it in than out. For example, PEAR::DB has "Database Abstraction Layer" as its summary from the XML. "PEAR: Database Abstraction Layer" makes more sense to me. Ditto for various other packages. See also owners.list for other PEAR packages. > also I'm not sure why you have BuildArch in the template.spec > because all pear packages are noarch. Huh? You still need BuildArch in there! See also the rpmdevtools template. If you mean why has it got an expanded @arch@ macro, well: a) it doesn't matter, since the output is what's important b) it matters for PECL. As it happens, you will not currently get a very useful PECL spec out of PCP, but you should do eventually, and ideally the spec template should be shared as much as possible. > Please shorten description to just the first paragraph Done > %build is missing a cd from the template, but not > technically required. Yes, I took it out because it's utterly pointless when there is no build section. Remember: the template is a template, not the finished article. It's intended to have human attention although of course minimising that is a bonus. (The *output* of php-PCP aims to be something slightly closer to the finished article, but even that needs human review) > Please include a copy of the php license in %doc. Done. NB: fixed upstream in CVS. > rpmlint doesnt like Source1 ending in .spec, can you rename this to > something that doesnt end in .spec? Yes, done, though I'm pondering whether this should be filed as an rpmlint bug. New version (with right version number in URL this time): http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/specs/php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging.spec http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/srpms/php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging-0.1.2-4.src.rpm -- 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