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=662257 Remi Collet <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? Bug 662257 depends on bug 662255, which changed state. Bug 662255 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-CodeGen - Framework to create code generators that operate on XML descriptions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662255 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA Resolution| |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-24 02:50:54 EST --- === FORMAL REVIEW === -=N/A x=Check !=Problem, ?=Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output: php-pear-CodeGen-PECL.spec: I: checking-url http://pear.php.net/get/CodeGen_PECL-1.1.3.tgz (timeout 10 seconds) php-pear-CodeGen-PECL.src: I: checking php-pear-CodeGen-PECL.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US skel -> skelp, seel, skol php-pear-CodeGen-PECL.src: I: checking-url http://pear.php.net/package/CodeGen_PECL (timeout 10 seconds) php-pear-CodeGen-PECL.src: I: checking-url http://pear.php.net/get/CodeGen_PECL-1.1.3.tgz (timeout 10 seconds) php-pear-CodeGen-PECL.noarch: I: checking php-pear-CodeGen-PECL.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US skel -> skelp, seel, skol php-pear-CodeGen-PECL.noarch: I: checking-url http://pear.php.net/package/CodeGen_PECL (timeout 10 seconds) php-pear-CodeGen-PECL.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pecl-gen 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the PHP specific items [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: PHP [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. md5sum : 6e5979ac00ec542f73f8e2d093c104bc CodeGen_PECL-1.1.3.tgz [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: f14 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [-] Packages don't bundle copies of system librarie [-] Package is not relocatable. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages with %{?_isa}, if present. [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [!] Final requires /usr/bin/pear php-common >= 4.3 php-pear(CodeGen) >= 1.0.7 php-pear(PEAR) [x] Final provides php-pear(CodeGen_PECL) = 1.1.3 php-pear-CodeGen-PECL = 1.1.3-2.fc14 [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: Koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2862959 [-] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: [x] Package functions as described. cd /usr/share/doc/php-pear-CodeGen-PECL-1.1.3/examples pecl-gen --dir=/tmp/syck syck.xml cd /tmp/syck, phpize; ./configure; make [x] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. (un)register of the extension : ok [-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [!] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] %check is present and the tests pass SHOULD : - open an upstream bug to request LICENSE file to be included - request upstream for a man-page MUST - according to "pci" result (and upstream), this package requires php 5.0.0 but requiring php-common >= 5.0.0 doesn't seems usefull (no older version exists in fedora or EL, and EL-4 has a too old pear version anyway) => So, remove or raise the php-common requires. - PEAR already required by php-pear(CodeGen) => So, remove Requires: php-pear(PEAR) -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review