[Bug 455227] Review Request: php-pecl-parsekit - PHP Opcode Analyser

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455227


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-06-23 19:52:31 EDT ---
I wanted to get back to this earlier, but I'm somewhat short on time these
days.  Here's a review.

These days %global seems to be preferred over %define, though the differences
are subtle and I don't think it makes any particular difference for the two
%defines you're using.

I think your Source0 should not be a URL if that URL is not valid, such as in
the case where you're using a CVS snapshot.

I'm not sure why you'd need "PECL:" in the Summary; the upstream site doesn't
use that in its summary, and it gives the impression that the name of the
package is "PECL".

Your BuildRoot: tag is missing any mention of %release.  One day soon BuildRoot
can go away, but that's not quite here yet and in the meantime it needs to meet
the guidelines. 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag

So only a few minor issues.

* source files match upstream (compared manually).
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
? summary could use a tweak.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
X build root is mising %release.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (F11, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   config(php-pecl-parsekit) = 1.2-2.CVS20090309.fc11
   parsekit.so()(64bit)
   php-pecl(parsekit) = 1.2
   php-pecl-parsekit = 1.2-2.CVS20090309.fc11
   php-pecl-parsekit(x86-64) = 1.2-2.CVS20090309.fc11
  =
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/pecl
   config(php-pecl-parsekit) = 1.2-2.CVS20090309.fc11
   php(api) = 20041225
   php(zend-abi) = 20060613

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I have no way to test this.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* scriptlets are OK (php module registration).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.