Bug 542075

OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
[ke4qqq@nalleyx60 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./php-pear-Net-URL2.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4qqq@nalleyx60 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.fc12.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4qqq@nalleyx60 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.fc12.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
Spec notes BSD - source in URL.php has BSD license text. 

NA: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English. 
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[ke4qqq@nalleyx60 SOURCES]$ md5sum Net_URL2-0.3.0.tgz*
4fca066d249abdc3cd3c3018d424d82b  Net_URL2-0.3.0.tgz
4fca066d249abdc3cd3c3018d424d82b  Net_URL2-0.3.0.tgz.1


OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
NA: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
NA: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
NA: 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. 
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. 

See Question Below: 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. 

Remi: 
I notice that in %files you have: 
%{pear_phpdir}/Net

This probably belongs under the section below regarding single file/directory owned by multiple packages. This strikes me as wrong, as a number of things put files in that directory, and this line strikes me as taking ownership of the directory. However, you are the php packaging expert, so perhaps this is a place for me to learn. I may be way off, as yum whatprovides returns 13 responses for that directory, and multiple packages seem to own it when queried with rpm -qf 

OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. 
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. 
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
NA: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. 
NA: Header files must be in a -devel package. 
NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
NA: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). 
NA: 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. 
NA: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 
NA: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
NA: 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. 


See question above: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. 

OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 


I'll try and get the remaining two looked at tomorrow morning. 

Thanks

NET dir must be owned because Net_URL2 doesn't require any other package
that already own it.

While I understand that, I'd imagine that this is a pervasive problem (as indicated 13 packages already own that directory.) Perhaps the php packaging guidelines need to have an exception, or perhaps all the subdirectories that aren't package-specific be owned by php-pear. 

Anyway, 

APPROVED 

Thanks for the work

Thanks for the review

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: php-pear-Net-URL2
Short Description: Class for parsing and handling URL
Owners: remi
Branches: F-12, F-11, EL-5
InitialCC:

cvs done.

php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.fc12

php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.fc11

php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.el5

php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update php-pear-Net-URL2'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-12613

php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update php-pear-Net-URL2'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2009-12741

php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update php-pear-Net-URL2'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0978

php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.