[Bug 227190] Review Request: php-pear-Auth-OpenID - PHP OpenID
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jul 31 18:03:50 UTC 2008
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Auth-OpenID - PHP OpenID
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227190
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm at atrpms.net 2008-07-31 14:03 EST -------
(In reply to comment #26)
> REVIEW:
Thanks!
> However I still have some suggestions.
>
> * docs should be packaged more consistently:
>
> http://peter.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-Auth-OpenID_docs.diff
OK, but let me keep it commented as when the package starts installing docs
again it would need to be special handled again.
> There are some valuable suggestions taken from Ian's spec:
>
> http://peter.fedorapeople.org/php-openid.spec
>
> * The package should provide php-yadis (seems that it should "Provides:
> php-pear(Auth_Yadis) = 1.0.2" or something similar)
There are extra Yadis packages out there (in fact I submitted one last year). I
would wait until someone needs that dependency. OTOH I actually don't have that
strong an opinion on that, if it turns out to be broken we could remove it later
just as good.
> * Should it require php-pear-DB instead of php-pgsql and php-mysql (and
> commented out php-sqlite)? I'm not sure, though.
The dependencies are from upstream and I even had Requires: php-pear-DB >= 1.80
in the previous specfile, but a user rightfully reported that this version in
the upstream dependency is completely broken. That's why I removed this
dependency altogether for now.
I suggest:
a) adopting your doc changed but leaving a comment block for future packages
that may revide the doc install target
b) making adding a vitual Provides: for Yadis your call - e.g. if you still
want it, I'll add it.
c) Letting php-pear-DB off as a dependency for now.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list