Spec URL: http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/HTML_Template_PHPLIB/HTML_Template_PHPLIB.spec SRPM URL: http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/HTML_Template_PHPLIB/HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: This is the PEAR port of the popular PHPLIB template system. It contains some features not currently found in the original version
Have you read through http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP? I note that this package doesn't meet the naming guidelines for pear packages, but I didn't look further.
Sorry about that my bad. http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB/php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB.spec http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB/php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.fc11.src.rpm
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. NEEDSWORK rpmlint php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.el5.noarch.rpm php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.0-2 1.4.0-2.el5 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. You should change "* Mon Jul 27 2009 Andrew Colin Kissa <andrew.net> - 1.4.0-2" to "* Mon Jul 27 2009 Andrew Colin Kissa <andrew.net> 1.4.0-2" (remove the dash/hyphen) so that that the version can be properly parsed # MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK # MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK # MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK # MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK # MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK # MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. N/A # MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK # MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK # MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. OK # MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK # MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines OK # MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. N/A # MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A # MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. N/A # MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. OK # MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK # MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK # MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK # MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK # MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK # MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK # MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A # MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A # MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). N/A # MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A # MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} N/A # MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. N/A # MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. N/A # MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK # MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK # MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK
You just need to clean up the spec changelog versioning and I'll approve the review
I also wouldn't bother requesting a CVS branch for EL-4 since it doesn't meet the php-pear requirements.
The changelog versioning issue is a bug in the rpmlint version (0.85) which is installed on RHEL, the Fedora version (0.87) does produce a clean result. With or without the "-" in the changelog rpmlint fails on RHEL but passes on Fedora.
Ahh indeed you are correct. Package is APPROVED.
Thanks for the review Gary, New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB Short Description: PHP template system based on preg_* Owners: topdog Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5
cvs done.
php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.fc10
php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.el5
php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.fc11
php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0300
php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 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-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-8701
php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.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-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-8735
php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.