[Bug 337801] Review Request: php-pear-pake - PHP5 project builder system
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Nov 19 04:49:08 UTC 2007
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-pake - PHP5 project builder system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=337801
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-11-18 23:49 EST -------
One rpmlint issue:
php-pear-pake.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/php-pear-pake-1.1.4/pake/LICENSE
Indeed, the license file contains a non-utf8 copyright symbol. A quick pass
through iconv fixes it up. Since it's minor and the only thing I can find to
quibble with, I'll go ahead and approve and you can fix it when you check in.
* source files match upstream:
9472e4adadfc031dcfc6aa557417143fb5aa411ef56482bc5d627364f015ef17
pake-1.1.4.tgz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged (as far as I can tell; the upstream web site
seems a bit broken)
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
php-pear(pear.symfony-project.com/pake) = 1.1.4
php-pear-pake = 1.1.4-2.fc9
=
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/pear
php-channel-symfony
php-cli >= 5.0.1
php-pear
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (pear module registration)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
APPROVED, just pass the LICENSE file through iconv.
--
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, or are watching someone who is.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list