Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-gearman - PHP wrapper to libgearman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694864
Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-gearman - PHP wrapper to libgearman Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: paul.whalen@senecac.on.ca QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: ---
Spec URL: http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/paulwhalen/php-pecl-gearman.spec SRPM URL: http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/paulwhalen/php-pecl-gearman-0.7.0-2.fc14.src... Description: This extension uses libgearman library to provide API for communicating with gearmand, and writing clients and workers.
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=694864
Chris Tyler chris@tylers.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |chris@tylers.info Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
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=694864
Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pingou@pingoured.fr
--- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr 2011-04-08 17:53:10 EDT --- Are you actually sponsored ?
You submitted two review requests for this package, one is FE-NEEDSPONSOR not the other one. Maybe you want to close the un-needed one as duplicate of the other.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694871
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=694864
--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 20:25:39 EDT --- *** Bug 694871 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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=694864
--- Comment #3 from Chris Tyler chris@tylers.info 2011-04-09 11:05:24 EDT --- Initial review - a few small things need attention:
[Y] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
php-pecl-gearman.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib/php/modules/gearman.so gearman.so php-pecl-gearman.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libgearman -> Lieberman php-pecl-gearman.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgearman -> Lieberman 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
-> Warnings look acceptable.
[Y] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . [Y] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [Y] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [Y] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [Y] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [N] 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 must be included in %doc.
-> Add LICENSE file to the %doc line.
[Y] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [Y] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [Y] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [Y] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [NA for PA] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [Y] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [NA] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [NA] MUST: 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. [Y] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [Y] MUST: 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. [Y] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [Y] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [N] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
-> Don't mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} in the spec file.
[Y] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [NA] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [Y] MUST: 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. [NA] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA] MUST: 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. [NA] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [Y] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [NA] MUST: 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [Y] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [Y] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items: Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do.
[NA] 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. [N] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [Y] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [Y for PA] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [NA] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [NA] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [NA] SHOULD: 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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [Y] SHOULD: 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. [NA] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
Additional: "Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there is a need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. For example, rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}, but %{__python} is acceptable." (See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros)
-> Spec file contains (for example) %{__rm}
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=694864
--- Comment #4 from Chris Tyler chris@tylers.info 2011-04-09 11:07:49 EDT --- Correction, spec file doesn't contain %{__rm} but does contain things like %{__cat}
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=694864
--- Comment #5 from Paul Whalen paul.whalen@senecac.on.ca 2011-04-11 12:26:17 EDT --- Thanks for the review Chris.
Those issues are now fixed and new srpm and spec file are available here:
http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/paulwhalen/php-pecl-gearman-0.7.0-3.fc14.src... http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/paulwhalen/php-pecl-gearman.spec
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=694864
--- Comment #6 from Chris Tyler chris@tylers.info 2011-04-11 14:55:24 EDT --- Initial review looks good, recommend for approval by a sponsor.
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=694864
Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dennis@ausil.us Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us 2011-04-11 15:00:28 EDT --- I will review and sponsor Paul
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=694864
--- Comment #8 from Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us 2011-04-11 15:33:11 EDT --- couple of things
%setup should be %setup -q -n gearman-%{version}
without doing all the mv stuff
build failed for me on f15
+ install -m 644 package.xml /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-gearman-0.7.0-3.fc15.x86_64/usr/share/pear/.pkgxml/php-pecl-gearman.xml install: cannot stat `package.xml': No such file or directory
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=694864
--- Comment #9 from Paul Whalen paul.whalen@senecac.on.ca 2011-04-11 16:30:09 EDT --- Thanks Dennis, those issues are now fixed.
http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/paulwhalen/php-pecl-gearman.spec http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/paulwhalen/php-pecl-gearman-0.7.0-4.fc14.src...
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=694864
Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us 2011-04-11 16:56:59 EDT --- looks cleaner now
sources match upstream sha512sum gearman-0.7.0.tgz fedora/SOURCES/gearman-0.7.0.tgz 0ba0779cf5b22744488b8c78d5a2479a9910a9f5f8a192c6487e1109bef2a8ab4a8821917b9f04ee0c2df9ad54c15bf3b549f970c9c62fb579a9cd15e1125fd4 gearman-0.7.0.tgz 0ba0779cf5b22744488b8c78d5a2479a9910a9f5f8a192c6487e1109bef2a8ab4a8821917b9f04ee0c2df9ad54c15bf3b549f970c9c62fb579a9cd15e1125fd4 fedora/SOURCES/gearman-0.7.0.tgz
rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result php-pecl-gearman.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/php/modules/gearman.so gearman.so()(64bit) php-pecl-gearman.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libgearman -> Lieberman php-pecl-gearman.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgearman -> Lieberman 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
of those the only one we could look at removing is the provides on gearman.so()(64bit)
only tweak i can see would be nice is to use the %{version} macro in the sourceurl but that is minor and not worth nitpicking.
approved
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=694864
Paul Whalen paul.whalen@senecac.on.ca changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from Paul Whalen paul.whalen@senecac.on.ca 2011-04-12 13:28:33 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: php-pecl-gearman Short Description: PHP wrapper to libgearman Owners: pwhalen Branches: f15,f16 InitialCC:
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=694864
--- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-04-12 13:35:07 EDT --- It is too early to request f16 branches; we haven't even released f15 yet.
Otherwise, Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=694864
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
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=694864
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-12 14:33:28 EDT --- php-pecl-gearman-0.7.0-4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pecl-gearman-0.7.0-4.fc15
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=694864
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-13 00:52:04 EDT --- php-pecl-gearman-0.7.0-4.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.
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=694864
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-05 01:06:59 EDT --- php-pecl-gearman-0.7.0-4.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
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=694864
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |php-pecl-gearman-0.7.0-4.fc | |15 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-05-05 01:07:04
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla