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-Net-URL - Easy parsing of URLs Alias: php-pear-Net-URL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212883 ------- Additional Comments From Fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-11-05 13:09 EST ------- * source files match upstream: 4be5ac05dc5a9bc54a33cec66d87eb0a SOURCES/Net_URL-1.0.14.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. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: php-pear(Net_URL) = 1.0.14 php-pear-Net-URL = 1.0.14-1.fc7 * %check is not present; no test suite provide. * owns the directories it creates (Net already owned but by non-dependant rpm) * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (pear install) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED What do you think of adding CHANGELOG to the %doc (have a look at the xml2changelod i used on my 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