[Bug 542036] Review Request: php-fpdf - PHP library to generate PDF files
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Sep 4 06:35:49 UTC 2010
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=542036
Iain Arnell <iarnell at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |iarnell at gmail.com
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |iarnell at gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Iain Arnell <iarnell at gmail.com> 2010-09-04 02:35:47 EDT ---
+ source files match upstream.
41cde491517a5e7515da84f95bb4e9d7 fpdf16.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.
MIT
+ license is open source-compatible.
- license text included
license.txt need to be in both main package and -doc sub-package
+ latest version is being packaged.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ compiler flags are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
+ package builds in mock
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2446844
+ package installs properly.
+ rpmlint has no serious complaints:
php-fpdf.noarch: I: checking
php-fpdf.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.fpdf.org (timeout 10 seconds)
php-fpdf.noarch: W: no-documentation
php-fpdf.src: I: checking
php-fpdf.src: I: checking-url http://www.fpdf.org (timeout 10 seconds)
php-fpdf.src: W: invalid-url Source0: fpdf16.tgz
php-fpdf-doc.noarch: I: checking
php-fpdf-doc.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.fpdf.org (timeout 10
seconds)
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
+ final provides and requires are sane:
php-fpdf = 1.6-3.fc15
=
php-gd
+ no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
+ owns the directories it creates.
+ doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ no generically named files
+ code, not content.
+ %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
The only problem is due to a change in the guidelines since you prepared the
package. You need to have license.txt as %doc in the main package as well as
the doc sub-package. Add that one line to the spec and it's APPROVED.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list