[Bug 239906] Review Request: php-pear-Net-Ping - Execute ping

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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-Ping - Execute ping


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239906





------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2007-05-15 19:27 EST -------
I suggest changing %description to:
  OS independent wrapper class for executing ping calls.
to correct a misspelling and add a period.

I think this package should have a depdendency on iputils (for /bin/ping). 
Otherwise I don't see how it could perform its function.

rpmlint complains:
  W: php-pear-Net-Ping incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.1-1 2.4.1-1.fc7
The package version is 2.4.1 but the (only) changelog entry refers to 1.4.1. 
Probably just a typo.

There is a basic test included which can easily be run at build time with:
   %check
   cd tests
   php test_result_parsers.php

* source files match upstream:
   17a169c66b5a9f3cd71126d16efcd92c75f9116243a6fcf9732d6f2d6ca0811d  
   Net_Ping-2.4.1.tgz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
X rpmlint has a valid complaint.
? final provides and requires:
   php-pear(Net_Ping) = 2.4.1
   php-pear-Net-Ping = 2.4.1-1.fc7
  =
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/pear

X %check is not present, but there's a runnable test suite.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]