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-pake - PHP5 project builder system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=337801 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-18 23:49 EST ------- One rpmlint issue: php-pear-pake.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/php-pear-pake-1.1.4/pake/LICENSE Indeed, the license file contains a non-utf8 copyright symbol. A quick pass through iconv fixes it up. Since it's minor and the only thing I can find to quibble with, I'll go ahead and approve and you can fix it when you check in. * source files match upstream: 9472e4adadfc031dcfc6aa557417143fb5aa411ef56482bc5d627364f015ef17 pake-1.1.4.tgz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses 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 (as far as I can tell; the upstream web site seems a bit broken) * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: php-pear(pear.symfony-project.com/pake) = 1.1.4 php-pear-pake = 1.1.4-2.fc9 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/pear php-channel-symfony php-cli >= 5.0.1 php-pear * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (pear 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. APPROVED, just pass the LICENSE file through iconv. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review