[Bug 683071] Review Request: libvirt-php - PHP bindings for libvirt virtualization toolkit

[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=683071

--- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com> 2011-03-09 08:53:05 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > The tarball at the source URL and in the .src.rpm differs.
> > 
> > According to the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Naming_scheme 
> > the package should be named php-libvirt instead of libvirt-php.
> > 
> 
> 
> Well, originally the project was named php-libvirt but it got renamed to comply
> with the names at http://libvirt.org/git . This was not my idea however I
> already got used to the libvirt-php name.

Don't confuse the upstream name and the Fedora name.  They can
be different if we need them to be.

> > Note that you have included the html doc in both main package and the -doc
> > subpackage. Also the %doc must be on the same line as the filename
> > specification.
> 
> This is because rpmlint was complaining the main package was not having any
> documentation. Shouldn't be I having it in the main package then?

You can ignore rpmlint if you think it is getting things wrong,
although it's often a good idea to add a small comment in the
spec file.

In this case, how about putting the README and license file (eg. COPYING)
into the main package, and the rest of the documentation in the
-doc subpackage.

> > 
> > The licensing is confusing/wrong - in the README you specify that the license
> > is GPL (if so, there should be COPYING with the correct GPL version). In the
> > .spec file there is License: PHP. The source files do not contain any copyright
> > statements nor license names - these are not required but they are recommended.
> 
> 
> Oh, I'll fix it. I guess this was done by multiple people contributing to this
> so it made some kind of mess there however for the PHP modules the licence
> should be a PHP licence, right? Or should be easily be GPL licence as well
> since it's just about the module/extension?

You really need to be clear about licensing before anything
can be incorporated into Fedora.  It's a legal requirement and
could get people into trouble.  Maybe clarify this with upstream
on libvir-list?

-- 
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.