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=693200
Mathieu Bridon <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org> 2011-09-19 01:35:23
EDT ---
[x] package passes
[-] not applicable
[!] package fails
[?] question raised
== MUST ==
[x] rpmlint output
$ rpmlint php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect*
php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml
php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C
%{pear_docdir}
php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
docdir -> doc dir, doc-dir, Doctor
php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html
-> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
=> All those can be ignored.
[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 files are GPL-licensed:
docs/js/asciidoc-xhtml11.js
docs/js/asciidoc.js
[!] 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
=> There is a LICENSE file, it is not installed as %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_Reflect-1.0.2.tgz
b99c85937e21e0a36f3e60b50aa0caddc946f581 PHP_Reflect-1.0.2.tgz
[x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into
binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture
=> Tested in mock, I can't build it in Koji as it has a BR on
php-channel-bartlett which is not yet packaged in Fedora.
[-] 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
[?] 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.
=> Should /usr/share/pear/Bartlett be owned by php-channel-bartlett or is
PHP like Perl where modules all own top-level module folders?
[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-Reflect-1.0.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm | cpio -ivd
5957 blocks
$ du -sh usr/share/doc/pear/PHP_Reflect
364K usr/share/doc/pear/PHP_Reflect
=> The doc is not in a subpackage, which is ok as it's still small.
[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
[x] 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
== To fix ==
- Install the LICENSE file as %doc
- About the GPL-licensed files, they are bundled JS scripts for the generated
documentation, so I'm not sure how this is supposed to be handled:
- force unbundle the JS? (although JS is generally exempted from bundling)
- mark the license tag as "BSD and GPL"?
- consider this a use-case similar as to the autotools files that are
included in autotools-using projects and which can have a different license
from the project?
- anything else?
== Notes ==
- Should /usr/share/pear/Bartlett be owned by php-channel-bartlett or is PHP
like Perl where modules all own top-level module folders?
--
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.