Spec URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/php-channel-phpseclib/php-channel-phpseclib.spec SRPM URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/php-channel-phpseclib/php-channel-phpseclib-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This package adds the phpseclib channel which allows PEAR packages from this channel to be installed. Fedora Account System Username: adamwill Cargo-culted from existing PHP channel specs, with the obvious changes.
Created attachment 844042 [details] review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1047596 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
Small notes: - version have no sense for such package, but we are used to take the rest version (so 1.3). BuildRequires: php-pear >= 1:1.4.9-1.2 => minimal version have no more sense (RHEL-4 is EOL) mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs => trivial, could be fixed on import. As this channel provides a lot of extensions which already exists in standard pear channel (probably all are not packaged) we should be very carefull with each package, to check file conflicts, in peardir, docdir, ... I will try to go forward on the other reviews. A possible solution could be to set a specific pear_phpdir, pear_docdir, pear_testdir... for this channel (so in the %post of this package). but I hope this is not required and we can go without. No blocker. === APPROVED ===
"version have no sense for such package, but we are used to take the rest version" ah, OK, I took the 'version' from the .xml file. "minimal version have no more sense (RHEL-4 is EOL)" cargo culted from the other specs :) "mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs" more cargo culting... "As this channel provides a lot of extensions which already exists in standard pear channel (probably all are not packaged) we should be very carefull with each package, to check file conflicts, in peardir, docdir, ..." We don't actually have much php crypt stuff packaged that I can see. I did check for conflicts other than Blowfish and didn't see any, but a double check would be welcome indeed. "A possible solution could be to set a specific pear_phpdir, pear_docdir, pear_testdir... for this channel (so in the %post of this package). but I hope this is not required and we can go without." Yeah, that was more or less my feeling - might be necessary, but let's hope not. I'll fix the things noted on import, thanks!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: php-channel-phpseclib Short Description: Adds the phpseclib channel to PEAR Owners: Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC:
No FAS accounts listed.
huh, I was sure I put that in. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: php-channel-phpseclib Short Description: Adds the phpseclib channel to PEAR Owners: adamwill Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Just a note on the namespace conflict problem: see https://github.com/phpseclib/phpseclib/issues/243 . Upstream has a 'php5' branch they're working on, and they plan to namespace phpseclib as part of that branch (looks like they're planning to switch to Composer). So the conflict will go away when that happens. I'll follow upstream and switch to the php5 branch when it makes sense to do so.
Built in all branches.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: php-channel-phpseclib New Branches: epel7
No owners specified.
It's a *change* request. Why do I have to list the owners? (same comment applies to every one of the goddamn change requests I painstakingly did that you goddamn refused, I mean really? You couldn't just ask me on IRC or something?)
Sigh. "The Package Name field is mandatory. Please only include other fields which need to be changed or updated. In the Owners field list the branch owner and any comaintainers. Please note that when the new branch is created, ownership or CC information will not be copied to the new branch, so be sure to specify in the request all of the owners and initialCC members the new branch should have." is possibly the most confusing paragraph of instruction I've ever read. Its meaning changes with each cumulative sentence. This whole process really is like a loaded gun with a random action timer attached to the trigger, and a foot discovery targeting system.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: php-channel-phpseclib New Branches: epel7 Owners: adamwill