Bug 196847 (php-pear-PHPUnit2)
| Summary: | Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit2 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Christopher Stone <chris.stone> | ||||
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | drindt, fedora | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2006-09-11 20:45:37 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Bug Depends On: | 190101, 196749, 196802, 196843 | ||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 163779 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Christopher Stone
2006-06-27 07:49:02 UTC
Created attachment 135268 [details]
logfile from rpmbuild
grant me some questions: why it is necessary to build these package as root? and why is the install method through rpm, instead of using pear? ok, the way by rpm is even ok and it is possibly better way to avoid obsolete files in the filesystem. but the build of that package is only possible as root. attached is a logfile of the buildprocess, unfortunatelly it did not build. Daniel, Build failed because you didn't use the latest php-pear (1.4.9-1.2 on fc5) with /etc/rpm/macros.pear. I'll go ahead and review this one, but I'll leave the other version of this package alone because frankly I don't think it's a terribly good idea to include multiple versions in the same repository in that manner. It's up to you how you do version upgrades; if the new version is that much better or more useful and isn't unstable then I'd just upgrade to it immediately. please review the alpha version if you are just going to review one. This one is not important to me, the alpha version one I need in FE. I'm going to go ahead and approve this. If you want to update to the alpha version, or someone else wants to approve the -alpha package, then that's fine with me. * source files match upstream: 95fe5e8dbb36462dd4d3f3daf8a4e8b3 PHPUnit2-2.3.6.tgz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text is included in each source file. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent (except for the bogus warning) * final provides and requires are sane: php-pear(PHPUnit2) = 2.3.6 php-pear-PHPUnit2 = 2.3.6-1.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/pear /usr/bin/php php >= 5.0.2 php-pear(Benchmark) php-pear(Log) php-pear(PEAR) php-pecl(Xdebug) * %check is not present; not possible to run the test suite. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED |