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 --- Comment #7 from Michal Novotny <minovotn@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-09 11:58:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (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. > > Don't confuse the upstream name and the Fedora name. They can > be different if we need them to be. > Well, I maintain the upstream for libvirt-php. If the names can be different then I rename the project for Fedora. > > > 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? > > You can ignore rpmlint if you think it is getting things wrong, > although it's often a good idea to add a small comment in the > spec file. Oh, ok. I won't be putting docs in the main package then. > > In this case, how about putting the README and license file (eg. COPYING) > into the main package, and the rest of the documentation in the > -doc subpackage. > > > > > > > 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? > > You really need to be clear about licensing before anything > can be incorporated into Fedora. It's a legal requirement and > could get people into trouble. Maybe clarify this with upstream > on libvir-list? Well, upstream libvir-list has nothing to do with the binding since I maintain the PHP bindings. However I should ask about the licence. 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