Bug 497140

- Does the package work with php4? Maybe a version could be added to Requires: php >=5.


rpmlint output is clean.

MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
- No PECL, PEAR or CHANNEL; package belongs to category "other php", so name is correct.

MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the  Licensing Guidelines. NEEDSFIX
- According to idna_convert.class.php license is LGPLv2+ not LGPLv2. Other php files do not contain any license specifications.

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

(In reply to comment #1)
> - Does the package work with php4? Maybe a version could be added to Requires:
> php >=5.

This does work with php 4.3 and later per the internal comments. I'll be happy to add the requires with a version though since for current version of Fedora php5 is the only option.



> MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
> Licensing Guidelines. NEEDSFIX
> - According to idna_convert.class.php license is LGPLv2+ not LGPLv2. Other php
> files do not contain any license specifications.

The 'LICENCE' file included with the software distribution is LGPLv2, and given the lack of licensing for the rest of the .php files this leads me to believe that these are LGPLv2 and that thusly the package should be LGPLv2 instead of LGPLv2+. I am open to correction on this point, though, but this is my understanding.

(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > - Does the package work with php4? Maybe a version could be added to Requires:
> > php >=5.
> 
> This does work with php 4.3 and later per the internal comments. I'll be happy
> to add the requires with a version though since for current version of Fedora
> php5 is the only option.

Okay, then it's no problem.

> > MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
> > Licensing Guidelines. NEEDSFIX
> > - According to idna_convert.class.php license is LGPLv2+ not LGPLv2. Other php
> > files do not contain any license specifications.
> 
> The 'LICENCE' file included with the software distribution is LGPLv2, and given
> the lack of licensing for the rest of the .php files this leads me to believe
> that these are LGPLv2 and that thusly the package should be LGPLv2 instead of
> LGPLv2+. I am open to correction on this point, though, but this is my
> understanding.  

See 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F

I think it has been mentioned also somewhere more visible in the guidelines, but I didn't find it in a couple of minutes.

Thanks for the clarification, please find corrected spec and srpm: 
Spec URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/php-IDNA_Convert.spec
SRPM URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/php-IDNA_Convert-0.6.3-2.fc10.src.rpm

rpmlint output: 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Package naming and spec file name is correct.
License is correct.
Spec file is legible, but doesn't consistently use macros (see below)
Package is correct.

- Do not mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}
- You could copy all php files in one line

Oh, this has been left hanging, sorry.

Lukas is right: you are mixing macros which is not allowed. Choose either $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} and stick with it, don't mix the two.

Also, I don't like to see macros used for standard unix commands, but this is maybe more a matter of style. I think it just makes the spec file harder to read.

I'll trust you to fix the macro issue upon import to CVS. The package has been

APPROVED

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: php-IDNA_Convert
Short Description: Internationalied domain name to UTF-8 converter
Owners: ke4qqq
Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 EL-5
InitialCC:

cvs done.

Push the update to F-9 and F-10 and close this bug.

ping David

This has been pushed to stable - apparently forgot to note the bug number in bodhi - apologized for letting it fall through the cracks.