Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/master/php-pecl-http/php-pecl-http.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pecl-http-2.0.0-0.1.dev3.remi.src.rpm Description: The HTTP extension aims to provide a convenient and powerful set of functionality for major applications. The HTTP extension eases handling of HTTP URLs, dates, redirects, headers and messages in a HTTP context (both incoming and outgoing). It also provides means for client negotiation of preferred language and charset, as well as a convenient way to exchange arbitrary data with caching and resuming capabilities. Also provided is a powerful request and parallel interface. Version 2 is completely incompatible to previous version. Documentation : http://php.net/http -- Notes to reviewer Project name is pecl_http but extension name is http (really ugly...) So I need to use both in the spec :( I choose php-pecl-http mainly because php-pecl-pecl-http seems awfull I want to keep Buildroot, %clean, ... to allow backport to old version, even if no more needed in fedora As this package requires PHP 5.4.0, target if fedora 17 only
Minor improvement in Provides https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/5adcb83ad5da986a360c82ba288cef35a4826b48
Update to 2.0.0dev4 (just a missing file in previous tarball) https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/35f0ffb43fddc6419bfc7f909a5698d121c2d853 SRPM: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pecl-http-2.0.0-0.2.dev4.remi.src.rpm
Latest changes in php https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/c1a379a2ce93bd87af735fce1676447963351fd3 http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pecl-http-2.0.0-0.3.dev4.remi.src.rpm
Again... https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/137d69a6d4a58328ce3f9362005fe01eaa03ab83
Update to 2.0.0dev5 https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/eabcc623cadb589c4c8ead3160483de25060373d http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pecl-http-2.0.0-0.4.dev5.remi.src.rpm
I'll take this one
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files devel section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [!]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST No %config files under /usr. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint php-pecl-http-devel-2.0.0-0.4.dev5.fc18.i686.rpm php-pecl-http-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint php-pecl-http-2.0.0-0.4.dev5.fc18.i686.rpm php-pecl-http.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US charset -> char set, char-set, catharses 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint php-pecl-http-2.0.0-0.4.dev5.fc18.src.rpm php-pecl-http.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US charset -> char set, char-set, catharses php-pecl-http.src: W: file-size-mismatch pecl_http-2.0.0dev5.tgz = 123166, http://pecl.php.net/get/pecl_http-2.0.0dev5.tgz = 122160 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint php-pecl-http-debuginfo-2.0.0-0.4.dev5.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files devel section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 See: None rpmlint php-pecl-http-devel-2.0.0-0.4.dev5.fc18.i686.rpm php-pecl-http-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint php-pecl-http-2.0.0-0.4.dev5.fc18.i686.rpm php-pecl-http.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US charset -> char set, char-set, catharses 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint php-pecl-http-2.0.0-0.4.dev5.fc18.src.rpm php-pecl-http.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US charset -> char set, char-set, catharses php-pecl-http.src: W: file-size-mismatch pecl_http-2.0.0dev5.tgz = 123166, http://pecl.php.net/get/pecl_http-2.0.0dev5.tgz = 122160 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint php-pecl-http-debuginfo-2.0.0-0.4.dev5.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. If you're not going to provide this for epel5, you should remove the buildroot, defattr, etc (according to the warnings from above). No blocking issue found, Package approved.
Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: php-pecl-http Short Description: Extended HTTP support Owners: remi Branches: f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
php-pecl-http-2.0.0-0.5.dev6.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pecl-http-2.0.0-0.5.dev6.fc17
php-pecl-http-2.0.0-0.5.dev6.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
php-pecl-http-2.0.0-0.6.dev7.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
php-pecl-http-2.0.0-0.6.dev7.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: php-pecl-http New Branches: el6 Owners: remi