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=683071 Michal Novotny <minovotn@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(minovotn@xxxxxxxx |needinfo?(tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx) |om) | --- Comment #4 from Michal Novotny <minovotn@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-09 08:48:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > The tarball at the source URL and in the .src.rpm differs. > > According to the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Naming_scheme > the package should be named php-libvirt instead of libvirt-php. > Well, originally the project was named php-libvirt but it got renamed to comply with the names at http://libvirt.org/git . This was not my idea however I already got used to the libvirt-php name. > Note that you have included the html doc in both main package and the -doc > subpackage. Also the %doc must be on the same line as the filename > specification. This is because rpmlint was complaining the main package was not having any documentation. Shouldn't be I having it in the main package then? > > The licensing is confusing/wrong - in the README you specify that the license > is GPL (if so, there should be COPYING with the correct GPL version). In the > .spec file there is License: PHP. The source files do not contain any copyright > statements nor license names - these are not required but they are recommended. Oh, I'll fix it. I guess this was done by multiple people contributing to this so it made some kind of mess there however for the PHP modules the licence should be a PHP licence, right? Or should be easily be GPL licence as well since it's just about the module/extension? Michal -- 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