Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 197411
Review Request: php-pear-Date - Date and Time Zone Classes
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:36 EST
Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-Date.spec
SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-Date-1.4.6-1.src.rpm
Generic classes for representation and manipulation of dates, times and time
zones without the need of timestamps, which is a huge limitation for php
programs. Includes time zone data, time zone conversions and many date/time
conversions. It does not rely on 32-bit system date stamps, so you can display
calendars and compare dates that date pre 1970 and post 2038. This package also
provides a class to convert date strings between Gregorian and Human calendar
W: php-pear-Date dangerous-command-in-%post install
but this is obviously bogus. Hopefully rpmlint will eventually be fixed to stop
complaining about this as going to show up in every pear package.
There seems to be a test suite included in the tarball. Is it possible to call
it? It looks like many of the tests need an external mopdule called PHPUnit.php
and I don't know enough about PHP to get the paths set up properly.
The test suite question is the only thing that keeps me from approving this.
The spec itself and the template it came from are quite clean and should work
great in practise.
* source files match upstream:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* specfile follows the suggested PHP-Pear specfile template currently under
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* 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).
* rpmlint has only bogus complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
php-pear(Date) = 1.4.6
php-pear-Date = 1.4.6-1.fc6
? %check is not present, but there are some tests upstream.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets present are OK (PEAR module installation)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
The rpmlint warning is mentioned here:
pear has no way to do a make check. It does include the test files in the rpm
Hmm. It doesn't have a "make check" but there must be some way to run the tests.
Also, I don't see the point of packaging the tests. Are they somehow useful to
the installed module? However, for some reason some Python modules do the same
thing, and it seems to be accepted, so I don't suppose it's a blocker. So,
I'm not sure, but the test dir is a standard php-pear dir and is defined in the
macros, so I'm sure lots of packages have stuff there. But AFAIK, there is no
standard way to run tests that are there. Perhaps we should assess the
situation after more php packages have been approved and see if the tests
directory is really needed.
Branch Package CVS Request
Package Name: php-pear-Date
Short Description: Date and Time Zone Classes