[Bug 710751] Review Request: php-pecl-oauth - PHP OAuth extension

[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=710751

Remi Collet <fedora at famillecollet.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |fedora at famillecollet.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet <fedora at famillecollet.com> 2011-06-13 11:49:58 EDT ---
=== FORMAL REVIEW ===
 -=N/A  x=Check  !=Problem,  ?=Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Rpmlint output:
php-pecl-oauth.spec: I: checking-url http://pecl.php.net/get/oauth-1.1.0.tgz
(timeout 10 seconds)
php-pecl-oauth.src: I: checking
php-pecl-oauth.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usernames -> user
names, user-names, surnames
php-pecl-oauth.src: I: checking-url http://pecl.php.net/package/oauth (timeout
10 seconds)
php-pecl-oauth.src: I: checking-url http://pecl.php.net/get/oauth-1.1.0.tgz
(timeout 10 seconds)
php-pecl-oauth.x86_64: I: checking
php-pecl-oauth.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usernames ->
user names, user-names, surnames
php-pecl-oauth.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.0-4
['1.1.0-4.fc15.remi', '1.1.0-4.remi']
php-pecl-oauth.x86_64: I: checking-url http://pecl.php.net/package/oauth
(timeout 10 seconds)
php-pecl-oauth-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
php-pecl-oauth-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://pecl.php.net/package/oauth (timeout 10 seconds)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the PHP specific items
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: BSD
 [x] 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] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
 md5sum : 26359ba5f04848e725a97c9aef9713b6  oauth-1.1.0.tgz
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: f15 x86_64
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Packages don't bundle copies of system librarie
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [!] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [ ] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages with %{?_isa}, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
 [-] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Final requires
php(zend-abi) = 20090626-x86-64
php(api) = 20090626-x86-64
/usr/bin/pecl  
...
 [x] Final provides
php-pecl(oauth) = 1.1.0
php-pecl-oauth = 1.1.0-4.fc15.remi
php-pecl-oauth(x86-64) = 1.1.0-4.fc15.remi
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. 
 [-] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: Koji 
 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3128201
 [x] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:
 [!] Package functions as described.
 [x] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. 
 [x] 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. 
     If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [x] %check is present and the tests pass


2 minor issues, no blocker:
- php_apiver macro is defined but never used. 
- phpinfo reports version 1.0-dev (instead of 1.1.0). please report this bug
upstream


============
  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.