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=693200 Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-19 01:35:23 EDT --- [x] package passes [-] not applicable [!] package fails [?] question raised == MUST == [x] rpmlint output $ rpmlint php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect* php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{pear_docdir} php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US docdir -> doc dir, doc-dir, Doctor php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. => All those can be ignored. [x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license [!] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. => The following files are GPL-licensed: docs/js/asciidoc-xhtml11.js docs/js/asciidoc.js [!] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file must be included in %doc => There is a LICENSE file, it is not installed as %doc. [x] The spec file must be written in American English [x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible [x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL $ sha1sum PHP_Reflect-1.0.2.tgz b99c85937e21e0a36f3e60b50aa0caddc946f581 PHP_Reflect-1.0.2.tgz [x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture => Tested in mock, I can't build it in Koji as it has a BR on php-channel-bartlett which is not yet packaged in Fedora. [-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly [-] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun [x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [?] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. => Should /usr/share/pear/Bartlett be owned by php-channel-bartlett or is PHP like Perl where modules all own top-level module folders? [x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings [x] Permissions on files must be set properly [x] Each package must consistently use macros [x] The package must contain code, or permissable content [x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage $ rpm2cpio php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect-1.0.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm | cpio -ivd 5957 blocks $ du -sh usr/share/doc/pear/PHP_Reflect 364K usr/share/doc/pear/PHP_Reflect => The doc is not in a subpackage, which is ok as it's still small. [x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application [-] Header files must be in a -devel package [-] Static libraries must be in a -static package [-] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package [-] Subpackages requiring the base package [-] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built [-] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section [x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 == SHOULD == [-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it [x] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane [-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg [-] 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 == To fix == - Install the LICENSE file as %doc - About the GPL-licensed files, they are bundled JS scripts for the generated documentation, so I'm not sure how this is supposed to be handled: - force unbundle the JS? (although JS is generally exempted from bundling) - mark the license tag as "BSD and GPL"? - consider this a use-case similar as to the autotools files that are included in autotools-using projects and which can have a different license from the project? - anything else? == Notes == - Should /usr/share/pear/Bartlett be owned by php-channel-bartlett or is PHP like Perl where modules all own top-level module folders? -- 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