Spec URL: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/php-pecl-imagick/php-pecl-imagick.spec SRPM URL: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/php-pecl-imagick/php-pecl-imagick-2.2.1-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: php-pecl-imagick is a native php extension to create and modify images using the ImageMagick API. Rpmlint produces only this errors: php-pecl-imagick.athlon: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick-2.2.1/INSTALL php-pecl-imagick.athlon: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick-2.2.1/TODO But this files has zero length in upstream, so I thought this may be safely ignored. Koji build are successful: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1012208
A few notes : - License is PHP, not BSD (according to pecl.php.net) - must use %setup -q -c (to not have package.xml outside the build tree) - missing require for ABI check : php(zend-abi) - should use %{pecl_install} and %{pecl_uninstall} when exists - why PEAR in sumnary ? - should add example directory in %doc (rather than each files) Read : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PHP
Also - use %{php_extdir} instead of %{_libdir}/php/modules - use %{pecl_xmldir} instead of your %{xmldir} As the package is available in my little testing repo, you can have a look to http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SPEC/php-pecl-imagick.spec
(In reply to comment #1) > A few notes : > > - License is PHP, not BSD (according to pecl.php.net) Off course. It has initialy 'PHP License' which is not correct, and I erroneously wasn't find "PHP" in list... > - must use %setup -q -c (to not have package.xml outside the build tree) Ok, I add -c flag > - missing require for ABI check : php(zend-abi) Hm... I fully borrow %if...%endif statement for that from your spec-file... Updated later: I found this in doc by link provided by you. > - should use %{pecl_install} and %{pecl_uninstall} when exists Ok. This is good note, thank you. > - why PEAR in sumnary ? Because description from it. Right, removed. > - should add example directory in %doc (rather than each files) Ok. > Read : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PHP Thanks a lot. (In reply to comment #2) > Also > - use %{php_extdir} instead of %{_libdir}/php/modules > - use %{pecl_xmldir} instead of your %{xmldir} Done. > As the package is available in my little testing repo, you can have a look to > http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SPEC/php-pecl-imagick.spec Yes, I have seen this new in your blog. Thank you for help. Your spec-file was very useful , but it also has some shortcomings (such as undocumented options documented only what its is undocumented :) in config, created from SPEC...) http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/php-pecl-imagick/php-pecl-imagick-2.2.1-2.fc9.src.rpm
REVIEW: + rpmlint (see comment) php-pecl-imagick.i386: I: checking php-pecl-imagick.i386: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick-2.2.1/INSTALL php-pecl-imagick.i386: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick-2.2.1/TODO php-pecl-imagick.src: I: checking php-pecl-imagick-debuginfo.i386: I: checking 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. + package name ok + specfile name ok + license Ok (PHP) + spec in english + source ok c205ff5e38ca88aad01e74ea8d0e3816 imagick-2.2.1.tgz + source URL ok + latest stable version + build ok (i386, x86_64, ppc and ppc64) + build ok in mock (F9, F10, devel) + BR ok for fedora + no locale + own all directories ok + perm ok + clean ok + contain code ok + doc small enough + doc not required to run + no devel + no gui + install start with rm buildroot + Final Requires /bin/sh /usr/bin/pecl config(php-pecl-imagick) = 2.2.1-2.fc11 libMagickCore.so.1 libMagickWand.so.1 libc.so.6 php(api) = 20041225 php(zend-abi) = 20060613 - Final Provides not ok (see MUST) config(php-pecl-imagick) = 2.2.1-2.fc11 imagick.so php-pecl-imagick = 2.2.1-2.fc11 + package.xml is V2 (registration ok) SHOULD: - TODO is provided empty by upstream, so i think it's ok (could be not empty in another version) - INSTALL is also empty but generally provides information about "building from source" which is not usefull with RPM. You should probably remove it (some package keep it, some remove it) - add version in BR (ok for all fedora but EPEL 4 don't have requirement) BuildRequires: php-devel >= 5.1.3, php-pear, ImageMagick-devel >= 6.2.4 - setup the -n option is needless when -c used - add conditional (recommended in PHP Guidelines) %post => %if 0%{?pecl_install:1} %postun => %if 0%{?pecl_uninstall:1} Without, you package couldn't be imported in EPEL-5 (macro not defined in old php-pear, but even "pecl install" don't work => no extension registration in this case) MUST: - add the missing virtual provides (from PHP guidelines) Provides: php-pecl(%peclName) Only the "MUST" must be fixed for approval, but SHOULD need your attention. Do you want to maintain thi package in EPEL ?
For MUST, of course i mean Provides: php-pecl(%peclName) = %{version}
Firstly - thank you for review. (In reply to comment #4) > REVIEW: > SHOULD: > - TODO is provided empty by upstream, so i think it's ok (could be not empty in > another version) > > - INSTALL is also empty but generally provides information about "building from > source" which is not usefull with RPM. You should probably remove it (some > package keep it, some remove it) As mentioned initialy in first post I also thik what it is not errors and I want to stay it here because it comes from upstream. > - add version in BR (ok for all fedora but EPEL 4 don't have requirement) > BuildRequires: php-devel >= 5.1.3, php-pear, ImageMagick-devel >= 6.2.4 Ok. But from what you get minimum requirement version of ImageMagick? I do not remember what versions was used, but as you can see by changelog, I maintain (for himself repository off course) this package notably long time, nad do not remember any problems with IM... > - setup the -n option is needless when -c used I wasn't known that. Fixed. > - add conditional (recommended in PHP Guidelines) > %post => %if 0%{?pecl_install:1} > %postun => %if 0%{?pecl_uninstall:1} Done. > Without, you package couldn't be imported in EPEL-5 (macro not defined in old > php-pear, but even "pecl install" don't work => no extension registration in > this case) So, EPEL-5 do not require such registration at all?? > > MUST: > - add the missing virtual provides (from PHP guidelines) > Provides: php-pecl(%peclName) Ok, added: Provides: php-pecl(%peclName) = %{version} > > Do you want to maintain thi package in EPEL ? I'm not use this distributions itself. But I can maintain it for EPEL5 on CentOS. It is acceptable? I compleatly do not want maintain it for EPEL4 (but I can import for that branch without testing with hope to the best). May be you want co-mantain it in EPEL4 and/or EPEL5? http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/php-pecl-imagick/php-pecl-imagick-2.2.1-3.fc9.src.rpm
> But from what you get minimum requirement version of ImageMagick? From upstream (and spec) description ;) > So, EPEL-5 do not require such registration at all?? No, like in older fedora (pear < 1.7) it wasn't possible. > But I can maintain it for EPEL5 on CentOS Yes > I compleatly do not want maintain it for EPEL4 Anyway, it is not possible as EL-4 only provides php 4.3.9 > May be you want co-mantain it in EPEL4 and/or EPEL5? Yes, add my FAS (remi) to the CC and request the EL-5 branch in you CVS request.
All changes are OK. Package APPROVED.
Sory for dalay. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: php-pecl-imagick Short Description: Provides a wrapper to the ImageMagick library Owners: Hubbitus CC: remi Branches: F9 F10 InitialCC:
cvs done.
I forgot EL-5 New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: php-pecl-imagick Short Description: Provides a wrapper to the ImageMagick library Owners: Hubbitus CC: remi Branches: EL-5 InitialCC:
php-pecl-imagick-2.2.1-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update php-pecl-imagick'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1275
php-pecl-imagick-2.2.1-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update php-pecl-imagick'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1312
php-pecl-imagick-2.2.1-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
php-pecl-imagick-2.2.1-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
php-pecl-imagick-2.2.2-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pecl-imagick-2.2.2-1.fc9
php-pecl-imagick-2.2.2-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pecl-imagick-2.2.2-1.fc10
php-pecl-imagick-2.2.2-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
php-pecl-imagick-2.2.2-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.