[Bug 814994] Review Request: php-channel-symfony2 - Adds pear.symfony.com channel to PEAR

Sun May 20 10:03:38 UTC 2012

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814994

Christof Damian <christof at damian.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #6 from Christof Damian <christof at damian.net> ---

Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated

==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.

I am discussing with Remi about the license for channel files, but in this
case MIT is OK as everything on the Symfony website is MIT licensed. 

[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
     for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

see above

[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint php-channel-symfony2-1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm

php-channel-symfony2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) symfony -> symphony
php-channel-symfony2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US symfony ->
symphony
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

rpmlint php-channel-symfony2-1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm

php-channel-symfony2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) symfony ->
symphony
php-channel-symfony2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US symfony ->
symphony
php-channel-symfony2.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

These are all warnings and expected.

[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/cdamian/fedora/reviews/814994/channel.xml :
  MD5SUM this package     : 23caa76bd3b1799367686c640f15c041
  MD5SUM upstream package : 23caa76bd3b1799367686c640f15c041

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[-]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[!]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
     Note: %define pear_channel pear.symfony.com

Issues:
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
     for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

All of these are minor problems and some can be fixed in future updates.

ACCEPT

You now have to wait to be sponsored before continuing with the process

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-review/attachments/20120520/05bb3c54/attachment.html>