https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1362490 --- Comment #6 from Jeroen van Meeuwen <vanmeeuwen+fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- == Bundling == (In reply to Remi Collet from comment #5) > Of course, I mean : "Non-free software must NOT go in the repo, even in > .src.rpm" I understand this to mean vendorized or bundled rather than non-Free, or am I misunderstanding something? I would like sufficient clarification to distinguish between needing to repack the upstream sources excluding the externals/jsonlint/ directory from what is shipped as the Source0 in the SRPM, or alternatively just not install it with the binary package. In any case, I agree we need to not ship it in the binary package and instead use the system php-jsonlint. I'll be working on a patch for it. I think I might have it sorted for the next .spec/.srpm I include == Seemingly Superfluous Requirements == The requirements could be split up between a set that is at the very core, a set that is needed for arcanist, the client-side command-line (Bug #1362487) and a set that is needed for phabricator, the server-side web interface and API (xhprof, apc|apcu, opcache, etc., Bug #1362491). We can do one worse by also sub-packaging phabricator-devel (xhprof comes to mind). Note that, currently, arcanist and phabricator currently list their own sets of dependencies satisfying the needs of the corresponding parts actually in libphutil. These would be cleaned up. == Requiring MySQL == I'm not certain what is the recommended route for requiring mysql. 'php-mysql' used to be provided by both the php-mysql as well as the php-mysqlnd sub-packages, but today unless I clause %{?rhel} out I cannot require 'php-mysql' in rawhide. I choose 'php-mysqli' which seems to still be provided by either or both of the packages across platforms. Note that the 'Obsoletes: php-mysql < x.y.z' in the current php-7 package in rawhide does not provide the equivalent nevra for 'php-mysql'. == Versioning Scheme == Upstream does not use versioning. They maintain a level of compatibility between days, weeks or months of releases of libphutil, arcanist and phabricator, but basically only ever move forward with deprecation warnings. I would like to use the Version to have packages depend on YYYY, MM and DD (of the last commit made to the stable branches of each GIT repository), so that I can let other packages depend on a dated version greater than some months ago and before some months ahead. At Flock however, jsmith re-iterated a packaging requirement that non-versioned software should have a version of 0, and a release of 0.$x.$date.git$id.%{?dist}, which I believe would void the requires and provides scenario I'm proposing we use for libphutil, arcanist and phabricator. However, perhaps we could/should move the git%{git_short_version_hash} over to the Release tag. Spec URL: https://kanarip.fedorapeople.org/phabricator/libphutil.spec SRPM URL: https://kanarip.fedorapeople.org/phabricator/libphutil-20160727.git8f8e02d-1.fc26.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx