XMPPHP is the successor to Class.Jabber.PHP which can connect to XMPP 1.0 server (google talk, jabber.orgf, LJ Talk, etc, supports TLS, several XML processing approaches and supported styles, persistent connection, etc. This is my fourth package and I am looking for sponsor. SPEC FILE: http://rakesh.gnulinuxcentar.org/php-xmpphp.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.gnulinuxcentar.org/php-xmpphp-0.1-0.1.beta_r21.fc8.src.rpm
Removing needsponsor, I have sponsored Rakesh.
I believe that the license should be GPLv2+; I know the upstream website says GPLv2, but the code itself has the "or (at your option) any later version" language. I'm not sure the summary is terribly useful. It tells me that this module replaces another, but it doesn't tell me at all what it actually does. The README file says "XMPPHP is an elegant PHP library for XMPP (aka Jabber, Google Talk, etc)" which seems to be a more reasonable summary. It seems that the current release is beta-r50; it came out about a month ago. Did you want to update to it? It seems to be somewhat different, including more examples and tests.
Thanks, I will update in few days. Will check whether dependent laconica has moved to latest one or not. Will check as soon as koji & mirrors get up.
I'll review it
Quite easy to review and to package item. I agree with Jason - you'd better to update package to r50, which is more interesting to deal with. I've got only one personal (cosmetic) wish - you shouldn't use macros in URL-field, because it's more easy not to substitute them manually just for visiting project's webpage :). E.g. instead of URL: http://code.google.com/p/%{realname}/ I prefer to see something like URL: http://code.google.com/p/xmpphp/ Just my opinion, anyway.
SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/php-xmpphp.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/php-xmpphp-0.1-0.1.beta_r50.fc9.src.rpm Updated to r50 + fixed license tag.
Should examples be placed in %doc? For example, in your package php-oauth you did place them there.
yes, you are right doc is correct place: SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/php-xmpphp.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/php-xmpphp-0.1-0.2.beta_r50.fc9.src.rpm
REVIEW: MUST Items: + rpmlint is silent. + The package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines . + The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. + The text of the license(s) is included in %doc. + The spec file must be written in American English. + The spec file for the package MUST be legible. + The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source: [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ md5sum ../SOURCES/xmpphp-0.1beta-r50.tar.gz* ab0fd09f9508f99bbfbf08850695de96 ../SOURCES/xmpphp-0.1beta-r50.tar.gz ab0fd09f9508f99bbfbf08850695de96 ../SOURCES/xmpphp-0.1beta-r50.tar.gz.orig [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture (ppc). + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + A package owns all directories that it creates. + A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. + The package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . + The package contains code, or permissable content. + Everything, a package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. APPROVED.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: php-xmpphp Short Description: PHP XMPP Library Owners: rakesh Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: rakesh Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
php-xmpphp-0.1-0.2.beta_r50.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-xmpphp-0.1-0.2.beta_r50.fc9
php-xmpphp-0.1-0.2.beta_r50.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-xmpphp-0.1-0.2.beta_r50.fc8
php-xmpphp-0.1-0.2.beta_r50.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
php-xmpphp-0.1-0.2.beta_r50.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.