[Bug 693204] Review Request: php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo - Find out version and the extensions required for a piece of code to run

Wed Sep 21 10:49:23 UTC 2011

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=693204

--- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha at fedoraproject.org> 2011-09-21 06:49:21 EDT ---
[x] package passes
[-] not applicable
[!] package fails

== MUST ==

[!] rpmlint output
    $ rpmlint ./php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo*
    php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml
    php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/pear/test/PHP_CompatInfo/tests/_files/source13873.php
    php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phpci
    php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C
%{pear_docdir}
    php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
docdir -> doc dir, doc-dir, Doctor
    php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml
    2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.

    => Those can be safely ignored except for the FSF address.

About the FSF address, it is apparently in a file used by the unit tests. This
file has been copied from the Beehive Forum source code, which is under the
GPL.

See below.

[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
[!] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
    => The following file is "GPL or MIT"-licensed:
       misc/jquery-1.5.min.js
    => The following file is GPLv2+-licensed:
       tests/_files/source13873.php
    => The following file is PHP-licensed:
       tests/_files/source7813.php

So your license tag seems incorrect. I'd say it should be "BSD and MIT and
GPLv2+ and PHP", but we probably should ask Fedora-Legal about it. :)

Or you could decide to remove those unit tests from the package?

Or...

[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file must be included in %doc
[x] The spec file must be written in American English
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL
    $ sha1sum PHP_CompatInfo-2.1.0.tgz*
    ee5ea43c96c058911068066eb76a41074268366c  PHP_CompatInfo-2.1.0.tgz

[x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture
    => Tested in mock, the required packages are not all in Fedora yet.

[-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[-] 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
[x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review
[x] 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.
[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly
[x] Each package must consistently use macros
[x] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
    $ rpm2cpio php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo-2.1.0-1.fc16.noarch.rpm | cpio -id
    4394 blocks
    $ du -sh usr/share/doc/pear/PHP_CompatInfo/
    920K usr/share/doc/pear/PHP_CompatInfo/

    => It's small, no need to separate it.

[x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[-] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[-] 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
[-] Subpackages requiring the base package
[-] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built
[-] 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
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

== 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
[-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[-] 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
[-] 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

== Summary ==

MUST:
- Incorrect FSF address must be reported upstream, perhaps add a comment in the
spec or at least in the review request?
- Clarify the licensing situation.

SHOULD:
- Not a blocker, but the phpci binary should have a manpage.

-- 
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.