Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517641 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-19 17:00:01 EDT --- I have to agree with Christof here; the channel itself doesn't have any specific PHP version dependency, and it's foolish to try and track whatever might get added to the channel to somehow extract that information. Besides, no supported Fedora release has anything older than php 5.2.6, so the guidelines indicate that we shouldn't have a versioned dependency in any case. What troubles me is where you found an MIT license for the content in this package. I would tend to lean towards the one small XML file in this package being non-copyrightable data, but then the fedora-bookmarks just has a list of URLs and it carries the GFDL license, so I guess it's good that I'm not a lawyer. Doctrine itself is LGPLv2+. I guess I'll block FE-Legal for an opinion, but you could just clear this up if you just ask upstream for some indication of the license of the channel file. (Actually what really bothers me is that we have to be so anal about this, but that's the way it is.) In any case, this is the epitome of a trivial package. I'd approve it if the license issue were cleared up one way or the other. * source file matches upstream. sha256sum: 215215f50b339b89d72b15cfa0273728dd2ba397c7d300c51a785f8223f4cdbc channel.xml * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. ? 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 (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints (no-documentation). * final provides and requires are sane: php-channel(pear.doctrine-project.com) php-channel-doctrine = 1.0.0-1.fc12 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/pear php-cli php-pear(PEAR) * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * scriptlets are OK (pear channel registration) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review