[Bug 185423] Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR
Alias: php-pear-PCP

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423





------- Additional Comments From rpm at timj.co.uk  2006-09-09 21:20 EST -------
Sorry about the version number cock-up.

> Please remove "PEAR:" from the summary in the template.spec

I've debated with myself about this one and put it in/took it out several times.
My general feeling is that it gives the "right" answer more times with it in
than out. For example, PEAR::DB has "Database Abstraction Layer" as its summary
from the XML. "PEAR: Database Abstraction Layer" makes more sense to me. Ditto
for various other packages.

See also owners.list for other PEAR packages.

> also I'm not sure why you have BuildArch in the template.spec
> because all pear packages are noarch.

Huh? You still need BuildArch in there! See also the rpmdevtools template.
If you mean why has it got an expanded @arch@ macro, well:

a) it doesn't matter, since the output is what's important
b) it matters for PECL. As it happens, you will not currently get a very useful
PECL spec out of PCP, but you should do eventually, and ideally the spec
template should be shared as much as possible.

> Please shorten description to just the first paragraph

Done

> %build is missing a cd from the template, but not
> technically required. 

Yes, I took it out because it's utterly pointless when there is no build
section. Remember: the template is a template, not the finished article. It's
intended to have human attention although of course minimising that is a bonus.
(The *output* of php-PCP aims to be something slightly closer to the finished
article, but even that needs human review)

> Please include a copy of the php license in %doc.

Done. NB: fixed upstream in CVS.

> rpmlint doesnt like Source1 ending in .spec, can you rename this to
> something that doesnt end in .spec?

Yes, done, though I'm pondering whether this should be filed as an rpmlint bug.


New version (with right version number in URL this time):

http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/specs/php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging.spec
http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/srpms/php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging-0.1.2-4.src.rpm


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.