[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 #7 from Michal Novotny <minovotn at redhat.com> 2011-03-09 11:58:26 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (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.
> 


Well, I maintain the upstream for libvirt-php. If the names can be different
then I rename the project for Fedora.


> > > 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.


Oh, ok. I won't be putting docs in the main package then.


> 
> 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?


Well, upstream libvir-list has nothing to do with the binding since I maintain
the PHP bindings. However I should ask about the licence.

Michal

-- 
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.