Spec URL: http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/php-pecl-selinux.spec SRPM URL: http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/php-selinux-0.1.2-devel.fc10.src.rpm Description: This package provides a set of interfaces to communicate between SELinux and PHP scripts via libselinux. It enables PHP scripts the following stuffs. - get/set a security context of processes and other resources - get/set system booleans - make a query for in-kernel security server - translate form of security context between 'raw' and 'translated' It shows the list of APIs: http://code.google.com/p/sepgsql/wiki/Memo_PHP_SELinux
The result of rpmlint: [kaigai@saba ~]$ rpmlint /home/kaigai/RPMS/SRPMS/php-pecl-selinux-0.1.2-devel.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [kaigai@saba ~]$ rpmlint /home/kaigai/RPMS/RPMS/i386/php-pecl-selinux-0.1.2-devel.fc10.i386.rpm php-pecl-selinux.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.2 ['0.1.2-devel.fc10', '0.1.2-devel'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. It claims "0.1.2" is noted on %changelog, although it is "0.1.2-devel.fc10". IIRC, it can be an acceptable warnings, isn't it?
(Removing NEEDSPONSOR) Well, I am familiar with neither php nor selinux, however some comments * rpm name - Please make Name consistent first. - I guess this rpm should be named as "php-pecl-selinx" as the spec file suggests. - However currently Name uses "php-selinux". * Versioning - If this is the pre-release of formal 0.1.2 release, please follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages (Anyway using "devel" as Release seems strange) * %__pecl - To build this package on koji, ------------------------------------------------------ %{!?__pecl: %{expand: %%global __pecl %{_bindir}/pecl}} ------------------------------------------------------ cannot be removed because - When buildroot is initialized, no PHP related rpms are installed yet, so %__pecl is not defined at this stage. - Then mock tries "rpm -bs --nodeps foo.spec". Then rpm complains like ------------------------------------------------------ error: line 14: Dependency tokens must begin with alpha-numeric, '_' or '/': Requires(post): %{__pecl} ------------------------------------------------------ * %if %{?php_zend_api}0 - Well, actually Fedora guideline actually suggests so, however generally this should be "if 0%{?php_zend_api}" (no deference for this case, however this is usual usage) * BR (BuildRequires) - Would you check if the following message in build.log ignored? ------------------------------------------------------ 81 checking for re2c... no 82 configure: WARNING: You will need re2c 0.13.4 or later if you want to regenerate PHP parsers. ------------------------------------------------------ * %post scriptlet ------------------------------------------------------ %post %{pecl_install} %{pecl_xmldir}/%{name}.xml >/dev/null || : %endif ------------------------------------------------------ - However %{pecl_xmldir}/%{name}.xml does not seem to be installed.
(In reply to comment #2) > * BR (BuildRequires) > - Would you check if the following message in build.log ignored? if the following messages can be ignored?
Tasaka-san, Thanks for your reviewing. I uploaded the revised version: Spec: http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/php-pecl-selinux.spec.20090305 SRPM: http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/php-pecl-selinux-0.1.2-1.fc10.src.rpm > * rpm name > - Please make Name consistent first. > - I guess this rpm should be named as "php-pecl-selinx" as > the spec file suggests. > - However currently Name uses "php-selinux". Sorry, it was my misoperation. The newer package uses "php-pecl-selinuc". > * Versioning > - If this is the pre-release of formal 0.1.2 release, > please follow > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages > (Anyway using "devel" as Release seems strange) Fixed. The "devel" was just a copy of PECL library. > * %__pecl > - To build this package on koji, > ------------------------------------------------------ > %{!?__pecl: %{expand: %%global __pecl %{_bindir}/pecl}} > ------------------------------------------------------ > cannot be removed because > - When buildroot is initialized, no PHP related rpms > are installed yet, so %__pecl is not defined at this stage. > - Then mock tries "rpm -bs --nodeps foo.spec". > Then rpm complains like > ------------------------------------------------------ > error: line 14: Dependency tokens must begin with alpha-numeric, '_' or '/': > Requires(post): %{__pecl} > ------------------------------------------------------ Fixed, I added the definition at the head of specfile. > * %if %{?php_zend_api}0 > - Well, actually Fedora guideline actually suggests so, however > generally this should be "if 0%{?php_zend_api}" (no deference > for this case, however this is usual usage) Fixed. > * BR (BuildRequires) > - Would you check if the following message in build.log ignored? > ------------------------------------------------------ > 81 checking for re2c... no > 82 configure: WARNING: You will need re2c 0.13.4 or later if you want to regenerate PHP parsers. > ------------------------------------------------------ The "re2c" is a parser engine, so this package has no relations. Now I asks for PHP experts to confirm whether my understanding is correct, or not. http://marc.info/?l=pecl-dev&m=123621647005625&w=2 > * %post scriptlet > ------------------------------------------------------ > %post > %{pecl_install} %{pecl_xmldir}/%{name}.xml >/dev/null || : > %endif > ------------------------------------------------------ > - However %{pecl_xmldir}/%{name}.xml does not seem to be > installed. I added to install package.xml as %{pecl_xmldir}/%{name}.xml
(In reply to comment #4) > The newer package uses "php-pecl-selinuc". s/php-pecl-selinuc/php-pecl-selinux/g
Assigning.
Okay, two issues/questions * Source tarball - source tarball in your srpm differs from what I could download from the URL written in your spec file. Does this mean that the source tarball used is the pre-release of 0.1.2? If so, please follow "Pre-release package" naming guideline. * %changelog - EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) information in %changelog differs from the actual EVR of this rpm. Please fix it.
> The "re2c" is a parser engine, so this package has no relations. > Now I asks for PHP experts to confirm whether my understanding is correct, > or not. > http://marc.info/?l=pecl-dev&m=123621647005625&w=2 PHP expert also agreed to ignore this warning in this package. http://marc.info/?l=pecl-dev&m=123627059603922&w=2 (In reply to comment #7) > Okay, two issues/questions > > * Source tarball > - source tarball in your srpm differs from what I could download > from the URL written in your spec file. > Does this mean that the source tarball used is the pre-release > of 0.1.2? If so, please follow "Pre-release package" naming guideline. Sorry, it was the regenerated tarball from CVS repos in same version by my hand. The correct tarball is the one uploaded at: http://pecl.php.net/selinux It was fixed on updated SRPM. > * %changelog > - EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) information in %changelog differs > from the actual EVR of this rpm. Please fix it. Oops, "x.y.z" was "x.z.y". Fixed. The updated packages are here: Spec: http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/php-pecl-selinux.spec.20090306 SRPM: http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/php-pecl-selinux-0.1.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Thanks,
Okay: ---------------------------------------------------------------- This package (php-pecl-selinux) is APPROVED by mtasaka ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors from Step 7.
Thanks for your reviewing! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: php-pecl-selinux Short Description: SELinux binding for PHP scripting language Owners: kaigai Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: kaigai.nec.com
cvs done.
Tasaka-san, Thanks for your great helps!