[Bug 693198] Review Request: php-channel-bartlett - Adds bartlett channel to PEAR

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693198

--- Comment #3 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha at fedoraproject.org> 2011-09-19 00:30:23 EDT ---
[x] package passes
[-] not applicable
[!] package fails

== MUST ==

[x] rpmlint output
    $ rpmlint ./php-channel-bartlett*
    php-channel-bartlett.noarch: W: no-documentation
    php-channel-bartlett.src:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
php-channel(%{channel})
    ./php-channel-bartlett.spec:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
php-channel(%{channel})
    2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

    => The unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(%{channel}) is conform to
the packaging guidelines:
      
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Packages_for_CHANNEL_.28repository.29_configuration

[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
[!] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
    => Your spec says BSD, but I can't find any information on the license,
       either in the channel file or on the upstream web site

[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file must be included in %doc
[x] The spec file must be written in American English
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL
    $ sha1sum channel.xml
    8041d033a8634aa0b071f569c3235129c7d435a7  channel.xml

[x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture
    => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3359442

[-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[-] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun
[-] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review
[x] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly
[x] Each package must consistently use macros
[x] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[-] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[-] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[-] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
[-] Subpackages requiring the base package
[x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built
[-] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

== SHOULD ==

[!] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it
[x] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is
usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself
[-] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts

== To fix ==

I'm probably missing something, can you confirm where you found that the
license for the channel is BSD?

-- 
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.