Bug 693198 - Review Request: php-channel-bartlett - Adds bartlett channel to PEAR
Summary: Review Request: php-channel-bartlett - Adds bartlett channel to PEAR
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mathieu Bridon
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 693200
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-04-03 13:47 UTC by Remi Collet
Modified: 2011-10-08 19:24 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.el6
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-10-02 18:18:49 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
bochecha: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Remi Collet 2011-04-03 13:47:34 UTC
Spec URL: https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/blob/master/php-channel-bartlett/php-channel-bartlett.spec
SRPM URL: http://remi.fedorapeople.org/php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
This package adds the bartlett channel which allows PEAR packages
from this channel to be installed.


PHP_Reflect and PHP_Compatinfo will be proposed woon for review.

Comment 1 Remi Collet 2011-08-25 10:40:08 UTC
PHP_Reflect and PHP_Compatinfo are also proposed for review (see blocked bugs)

Comment 2 Mathieu Bridon 2011-09-19 03:44:38 UTC
Taking.

Comment 3 Mathieu Bridon 2011-09-19 04:30:23 UTC
[x] package passes
[-] not applicable
[!] package fails

== MUST ==

[x] rpmlint output
    $ rpmlint ./php-channel-bartlett*
    php-channel-bartlett.noarch: W: no-documentation
    php-channel-bartlett.src:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(%{channel})
    ./php-channel-bartlett.spec:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(%{channel})
    2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

    => The unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(%{channel}) is conform to the packaging guidelines:
       http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Packages_for_CHANNEL_.28repository.29_configuration

[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
[!] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
    => Your spec says BSD, but I can't find any information on the license,
       either in the channel file or on the upstream web site

[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file must be included in %doc
[x] The spec file must be written in American English
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL
    $ sha1sum channel.xml
    8041d033a8634aa0b071f569c3235129c7d435a7  channel.xml
    
[x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture
    => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3359442

[-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[-] 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
[-] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review
[x] 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.
[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly
[x] Each package must consistently use macros
[x] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[-] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[-] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[-] 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
[-] Subpackages requiring the base package
[x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built
[-] 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
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

== SHOULD ==

[!] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it
[x] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is
usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself
[-] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts

== To fix ==

I'm probably missing something, can you confirm where you found that the license for the channel is BSD?

Comment 4 Remi Collet 2011-09-19 04:56:22 UTC
AS you have noticed, the "source" is only a very simple file.

We have choose (FPC meeting, but I don't find any record of this), as for the others php-channel-package to use
- license => used for the packages in the channel
- version => rest version provided by the channel

Comment 5 Mathieu Bridon 2011-09-19 05:37:42 UTC
Ok, I'm new to PHP packaging so I didn't know about that FPC decision.

Package is thus APPROVED.

Note: if you could find a reference about this FPC decision and add a comment in the spec just above the License tag, it would probably make it easier for future newbie reviewers like me to find a precedent. :)

Comment 6 Remi Collet 2011-09-19 07:17:35 UTC
Thanks for the review


New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: php-channel-bartlett
Short Description: Adds bartlett channel to PEAR
Owners: remi
Branches: f15 f16 el6
InitialCC:

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2011-09-19 10:05:20 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2011-09-19 18:03:19 UTC
php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc16

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2011-09-19 18:03:52 UTC
php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc15

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2011-09-19 18:06:15 UTC
php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.el6

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2011-09-19 22:58:07 UTC
php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2011-10-02 18:18:44 UTC
php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2011-10-08 18:04:19 UTC
php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2011-10-08 19:24:07 UTC
php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.