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-pecl-phar - Allows running of complete applications out of .phar files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247515 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-12 23:34 EST ------- This looks mostly OK. I guess it would be good to augment the PHP guidelines with the extra bits like pecl module registration. The spec doesn't use macros consistently. In some places it uses %{__mkdir_p} while others have "mkdir -p". %{__install} needs to be used as well. Since the only issue I can find is four commands that need to be converted to macros, I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix it when you check in. Review: * source files match upstream: 83fad1a7946e8355aebf40e4928a2a6323c86f16df41ad9f67fa3b3852229fc8 phar-1.2.0.tgz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named. X specfile does not use macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * 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. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: config(php-pecl-phar) = 1.2.0-1.fc8 phar.so()(64bit) php-pecl(phar) = 1.2.0-1.fc8 php-pecl-phar = 1.2.0-1.fc8 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/pecl /usr/bin/php config(php-pecl-phar) = 1.2.0-1.fc8 php(api) = 20041225 php(zend-abi) = 20060613 php-bz2 php-common >= 5.2.0 php-hash * %check is present and all tests pass: TEST RESULT SUMMARY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Exts skipped : 0 Exts tested : 34 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of tests : 97 95 Tests skipped : 2 ( 2.1%) -------- Tests warned : 0 ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) Tests failed : 0 ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) Tests passed : 95 ( 97.9%) (100.0%) * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (pecl module registration) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED, just fix the two "mkdir -p" and two "install" calls to be macros like the rest of the spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review