Bug 232165 (pear-File-Passwd)
Summary: | Review Request: php-pear-File-Passwd - Manipulate many kinds of password files | ||
---|---|---|---|
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 | Flags: | j:
fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+ |
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: | 2007-05-15 04:39:04 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: |
Description
Christopher Stone
2007-03-14 01:50:51 UTC
Builds fine and rpmlint is clean. Everything looks good, although I'm curious about the split of the -samba subpackage. The additional dependencies from php-pear-Crypt-CHAP only total about 200K, which isn't a really big deal but I guess it is nonzero. It looks like the code handles the missing Smb module well (raising an exception instead of just bombing) so I don't suppose it will hurt anything. But if you were trying to save folks from having to install samba, then there's not much point because even now the -samba module doesn't require samba (just a few encryption libs). You might also consider calling the subpackage "-Smb" since that's what the module itself is called. We don't really have any guidelines for this, so I suppose it's up to you. I don't see any blockers, though. Review: * source files match upstream: b01af05eb1c9714737ea5aba0b409c4dc6e6e62363a36a6c4b0a0d0048b69edb File_Passwd-1.1.6.tgz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * 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. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: php-pear-File-Passwd-1.1.6-1.fc7.noarch.rpm php-pear(File_Passwd) = 1.1.6 php-pear-File-Passwd = 1.1.6-1.fc7 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/pear php-pear(PEAR) php-pear-File-Passwd-samba-1.1.6-1.fc7.noarch.rpm php-pear-File-Passwd-samba = 1.1.6-1.fc7 = php-pear(Crypt_CHAP) >= 1.0.0 php-pear-File-Passwd = 1.1.6-1.fc7 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. /usr/share/pear/File is also owned by php-pear-File but it is not a dependency (and it doesn't need to be). * 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, I'll leave it to you to decide whether you really need the subpackage. Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-File-Passwd.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-File-Passwd-1.1.6-2.src.rpm %changelog * Sun May 13 2007 Christopher Stone <chris.stone> 1.1.6-2 - Include samba extension as default for Fedora - Exclude samba extension from Enterprise Linux Can you please check this updated spec file, I'm not sure if I did this right: %if !0%{?rhel} ...etc Nevermind, I just got thl's email and did an EL-5 mock build, everything looks okay. Thanks for the review! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: php-pear-File-Passwd Short Description: Manipulate many kinds of password files Owners: chris.stone Branches: EL-5 FC-5 FC-6 InitialCC: Build on all branches succeeded, thanks for the review! |