[Bug 227191] Review Request: php-pear-Services-Yadis - PHP Yadis

[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-Services-Yadis - PHP Yadis


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227191





------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx  2008-05-10 09:06 EST -------
I made some little changes since Services_Yadis-1.0.2.tgz tarball was rebuilt
and moved to new destination. Now it can be downloaded from the following:

http://openidenabled.com/files/php-openid/files/PHP-yadis-1.0.2.tar.gz

Another two minor changes was to rename BuildRoot and to add empty %build-section.

There are slightly modified files:

http://peter.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-Services-Yadis.spec
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-Services-Yadis-1.0.2-2.fc9.src.rpm

REVIEW:

- rpmlint is not silent. It complains to wring license, LGPL. We should add
actual license (LGPLv1, LGPLv2+ or something else). BTW I found mentions of
non-existent COPYING file in sources. Maybe we should provide it? Another
confusing thing is that there is MPL-1.1.txt file among %docs.

+ The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
+ The spec file must be written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+ The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. 
+ The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one supported architecture.

+/- All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. I think we also need
to Require those packages that provide %dir %{pear_phpdir}/Auth/Services if any.

- A package must own all directories that it creates. I think we must include
the following line in the %files section:

%dir %{pear_phpdir}/Auth/Services/Yadis


+ A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files must be set properly. 
+ Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section
of Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
+ If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the
application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it
is not present.
+ At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 

Summarizing things:

* we should fix license field in spec-file and add proper COPYING file into %docs
* we should own only our directory and add Requires for those packages that own
upper directories


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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]