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-XML-Serializer - Swiss-army knife for reading and writing XML files Alias: pear-XML-Serializer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210787 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-16 17:38 EST ------- I have php-pear-XML-Util in a local repo in order to build this. I wonder if what's installed into /usr/share/pear/data/XML_Serializer/doc shouldn't be %doc instead. * source files match upstream: f9d7dd792a7b3258dfa4544017734cf8 XML_Serializer-0.18.0.tgz * 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 not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: php-pear(XML_Serializer) = 0.18.0 php-pear-XML-Serializer = 0.18.0-1.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/pear php-pear(PEAR) php-pear(XML_Parser) php-pear(XML_Util) php-xml * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets 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