[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  2006-06-28 09:41 EST -------
Thanks for taking on the package Chris.

(In reply to comment #9)
> When this package is installed, the pear install and uninstall commands are
> removed and the %post and %postun sections are not executed properly.

This wasn't the case previously (and indeed right now I have it quite happily
installed here without that problem) so there is something environment-specific
about this, but by sheer coincidence I noticed this myself on another machine
this morning. Fixed upstream this morning in cvs.php.net so I will build a new
version of this RPM when there is a new upstream ver.

(In reply to comment #10)
> Also, please change the License field to say just "PHP License" this is what
> rpmlint will expect. 

I do not think this should happen, for the following reasons:

a) The License field is supposed to be what the License is, not what rpmlint
thinks it should be. If rpmlint doesn't know it, rpmlint needs fixing - not the
package. That's not an argument against consistency, but is an argument for
accuracy. See also (b) below.

b) "The PHP License v3.01" is exactly what the current Core "php" package uses

c) Noting the versioning of licenses is important. I'll rephrase and repeat what
I said over in bug #196281, which is:

We really ought to specify a version if the package specifies one, because
otherwise if there's (say) a PHP License v4 in future with different terms, we
would be misleading users by implying they could distribute it under the terms
of v4 whereas the authors might have only specified v3. We should respect the
author's license. Note for example that recent Core "php" packages have started
explicitly mentioning license version.

Now I will hold my hands up (as the upstream maintainer of this package) for not
enforcing consistency upstream; all the source files mention 3.01 but the web
page says "PHP License" and links to 2.02.  That will also be fixed to be
consistent for the upcoming 0.1.2.

> A copy of the actual license should be included and added to %doc

This is against the usual convention and directly conflicts with the advice I
was given in bug #176733, the first PEAR package to be added to FE.

-- 
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.