[Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: php-pear
Alias: php-pear

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295





------- Additional Comments From rpm at timj.co.uk  2007-02-06 17:04 EST -------
In reply to comment #21)

Yes, there is some weird stuff going on upstream - optional deps are not being
marked as such. Upstream bug filed: http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=10040

If I can summarise where we are with this review, I think the following 4 issues
are outstanding at this point:

- $RPM_SOURCE_DIR vs %{SOURCEx}. Joe, I take your point about painting the
bikesheds although the latter form is clearer to me too as it ties up the
SourceX files in the list with what's actually going on in the spec
- License tag. This is trivial stuff. There is a DRAFT proposal by Jason T
regarding general cleanups here:
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LicenseTag . Personally I
don't think this is a blocker either way, at least in the absence of an approved
guideline from the committee one way or another.
- empty build section. This seems pointless to me but has been done to death on
fe-list and my understanding of the conclusion is that empty build sections are
stupid but necessary to avoid some kind of obscure bug
- bootstrapping: I think this is the key technical issue this review should
focus on. I think we're all agreed that splitting off subpackages is a good
concept, to aid modularity and allow individual upgrades. Chris has offered to
do any extra work required, so that's cool. However with the current (PHAR)
based bootstrapping, the XML_RPC, Console_Getopt and Archive_Tar subpackages are
pretty much required as part of PEAR. Switching to an alternative packaging
methodology (e.g. PLD) is one possible solution to this.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.