Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-Validate.spec
SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-Validate-0.6.3-1.src.rpm
Package to validate various datas. It includes :
- numbers (min/max, decimal or not)
- email (syntax, domain check, rfc822)
- string (predifined type alpha upper and/or lowercase, numeric,...)
- date (min, max)
- uri (RFC2396)
- possibility valid multiple data with a single method call (::multiple)
* Wed Sep 06 2006 Christopher Stone <email@example.com> 0.6.4-1
- Upstream sync
* source files match upstream:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* 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 is silent (except for the bogus warning)
* final provides and requires are sane:
php-pear(Validate) = 0.6.4
php-pear-Validate = 0.6.4-1.fc6
* %check is not present; there are tests but it is not possible to execute them
* 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 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.
I neglected to mention that the Summary: is a bit lacking. And for the
%description, "datas" isn't a word. Neither keep this package from being
approved, but you might want to flesh out the Summary a bit and s/datas/data/ in
Branch Package CVS Request
Package Name: php-pear-Validate
Short Description: Validation Class for Various Data Types