Bug 693198

PHP_Reflect and PHP_Compatinfo are also proposed for review (see blocked bugs)

Taking.

[x] package passes
[-] not applicable
[!] package fails

== MUST ==

[x] rpmlint output
    $ rpmlint ./php-channel-bartlett*
    php-channel-bartlett.noarch: W: no-documentation
    php-channel-bartlett.src:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(%{channel})
    ./php-channel-bartlett.spec:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(%{channel})
    2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

    => The unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(%{channel}) is conform to the packaging guidelines:
       http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Packages_for_CHANNEL_.28repository.29_configuration

[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.
    => Your spec says BSD, but I can't find any information on the license,
       either in the channel file or on the upstream web site

[-] 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
[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 channel.xml
    8041d033a8634aa0b071f569c3235129c7d435a7  channel.xml
    
[x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture
    => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3359442

[-] 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
[-] 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
[x] 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.
[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
[-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[-] 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
[x] 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 ==

I'm probably missing something, can you confirm where you found that the license for the channel is BSD?

AS you have noticed, the "source" is only a very simple file.

We have choose (FPC meeting, but I don't find any record of this), as for the others php-channel-package to use
- license => used for the packages in the channel
- version => rest version provided by the channel

Ok, I'm new to PHP packaging so I didn't know about that FPC decision.

Package is thus APPROVED.

Note: if you could find a reference about this FPC decision and add a comment in the spec just above the License tag, it would probably make it easier for future newbie reviewers like me to find a precedent. :)

Thanks for the review


New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: php-channel-bartlett
Short Description: Adds bartlett channel to PEAR
Owners: remi
Branches: f15 f16 el6
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc16

php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc15

php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.el6

php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.

php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.

php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.