[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Component|Package Review |openbabel OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |163778, 177841, 197974 nThis|| -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|openbabel |Package Review OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841, 197974 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 18:50 EST --- Somehow things got a bit screwed up. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 13:06 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/php-shout.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/php-shout-0.3.1-5.src.rpm Okay I did find some time to update the package with these fixes. The reason I removed pkgconfig is that it was decided that libshout-devel would already require pkgconfig (and I still think it should...), but you're right... I tried it in mock and it fails without pkgconfig. You should also be able to find the 0.3.1 sources on SourceForge now. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841, 197974 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 20:23 EST --- You might even trace the pkgconfig problem further back; libshout-devel depends on libogg-devel, which also has a .pc file but no pkgconfig dependency. It seems there's bustage all around. I filed a bug against libogg-devel so there's a chance of this getting fixed in the future, but of course you have to target existing releases and so keeping the pkgconfig dependency here is the right thing to do. In any case, things look much better now; rpmlint is quiet and I can grab the upstream source. The only thing I notice, which I'm not too clear on, is your requirement of a minimum php-api version. Shouldn't this be a requirement of a specific php-api version (i.e. = instead of =)? I'll wager that you know more about PHP APIs than I do, so I'll leave it to you to decide what's best here. Well, there is one tiny thing. Your most recent changelog line is dated Jun 30 instead of Aug 11. You can fix it when you check in. Review: * source files match upstream: 3a630c1953e0bd0c42a3324f5e449077 phpShout-0.3.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: config(php-shout) = 0.3.1-5.fc6 shout.so()(64bit) php-shout = 0.3.1-5.fc6 = config(php-shout) = 0.3.1-5.fc6 libogg.so.0()(64bit) libshout.so.3()(64bit) libspeex.so.1()(64bit) libtheora.so.0()(64bit) libvorbis.so.0()(64bit) php-api = 20041225 * %check is present and the included test seems to pass. * shared libraries are present, internal to PHP. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. APPROVED. Go ahead and apply for cvsextras membership (and fedorabugs if you want it). I'll set you up and then you can check in and request your builds. Let me know if you need any help. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-10 17:53 EST --- I know this has sat around for too long, but the end is in sight. The packaging committee accepted the PHP guideline draft, although honestly it didn't say much about extensions like this one. In any case, I'm ready to move forward with this review. The first problem is that it doesn't build; I had to add a BR: on pkgconfig. Previously you indicated that this wasn't required, but it certainly is a problem. Perhaps the new minimal buildroots have changed things since you were able to build without the BR. rpmlint finds this in SRPM: W: php-shout macro-in-%changelog buildroot You just need to double a percent sign somewhere. and in the built RPM: E: php-shout script-without-shellbang /usr/share/doc/php-shout-0.3.1/TODO E: php-shout script-without-shellbang /usr/share/doc/php-shout-0.3.1/README These are executable for some reason, and shouldn't be. E: php-shout-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/phpShout-0.3.1/php_shout.h E: php-shout-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/phpShout-0.3.1/php_shout.c These source files are executable, and should be chmodded in %prep. The final set of macros which were chosen: %global php_apiver %((echo 0; php -i 2/dev/null | sed -n 's/^PHP API = //p') | tail -1) %global php_extdir %(php-config --extension-dir 2/dev/null || echo undefined) Care to fix things up to use those? Finally, I can't fetch the upstream source from the given URL. The only thing that seems to be available is 0.3a. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 00:14 EST --- I'm taking a quick trip this weekend (Six Flags wooo!), and will get to these after the weekend! -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|181523 | OtherBugsDependingO||197974 nThis|| -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-03 13:31 EST --- No offense guys, but debate about these macros have been going on for over 3 months now, and I've made several new rpm releases just to appease one reviewer or the next, and I'm tired of going back and forth. Christopher's latest recommendation look like exactly what I started with, and I'm not real keen on spending all this time just to end up back where I started. SO, since Jason is the one actually assigned to this review and will be the one to sponsor me, I leave it to him to decide what the final macros should be. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-03 13:43 EST --- I have to agree; we should pick one thing and stick with it. However, unfortunately the PHP guidelines did not pass at the recent packaging committee meeting, so I cannot approve this package at this time no matter what happens to the guidelines. I will make sure that the ratified guidelines include the proper macros for extracting the PHP API version and the review this package against those. Honestly, my preference will be to avoid BS like be_happy_mock or hardcoding a specific default API version and just using 0. The only requirement is that the result after the macro expansions be a specfile with the proper syntax so that the initial BuildRequires can be extracted. It shouldn't even be necessary to play with the extdir define. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-03 13:51 EST --- I thought (also in comment 36 and comment 37) that the php moratorium only applied to packages containing php code or pear/pecl packages, not packages containing binary extensions to the php engine, like this one. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-03 14:15 EST --- Sorry, that's incorrect. Applications which are simply written in PHP are OK. Extensions to PHP, either PEAR, PECL, or binary are not to be approved until we have guidelines for packaging them. Feel free to join the fedora-packaging list and help us to complete those guidelines. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-03 00:47 EST ---
I would use these macros instead:
%define extdir %(php-config --extension-dir || echo %{_libdir}/php/modules)
%define apiver %((phpize --version 2/dev/null || echo 'PHP Api Version:
20041225' ) | sed -n '/PHP Api Version/ s/.*: *//p')
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-30 07:27 EST --- (for my comment #31 above): The final auto-detection macro should be: %define extdir %(php-config --extension-dir 2/dev/null || echo be_happy_mock) %define apiver %(( phpize --version 2/dev/null || echo 'PHP Api Version: be_happy_mock' ) | sed -n '/PHP Api Version/ s/.*: *//p') Note, that echo be_happy_mock workaround is needed, because the FE build system uses mock now. There are two .spec file reads, first by mock (before rpmbuild stage), and second by rpmbuild (as normal). At the second stage all is OK (as php-devel package, which owns the php-config and phpize, is already present in the build environment), but at the first stage there still is no php-config/phpize, and mock fails when extdir/apiver are left undefined. (Surely at the actual package build stage extdir/apiver will be defined properly). -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-29 18:48 EST --- I did do a handful of reviews back then, and there was some confusion on terminology and whether or not a newcomer like me was actually allowed to approve and close a bug or just offer comments... then through a long series of waiting on libshout=2 and several iterations of my RPM, I never have gotten approved / sponsored. Though this is my first package I submitted, I also have horde and php-pear-Mail-Mine up for review, so I think theoretically you could 'sponsor' me with either of those packages if you still feel php-shout isn't up to par, and I can then import the other packages when they get approved. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 22:43 EST --- Agree to comment #36. There are many such plugins already available that can be used as reference. I took a cursory glance at the spec file and noticed: BuildRequires: pkgconfig This should not be there, this is a bug in the libshout package. The libshout package should have: %package devel ... Requires: pkgconfig As you can see here: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/libshout/libshout.spec?root=extrasrev=1.12view=markup it currently does not. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 22:51 EST --- Actually pkgconfig is most likely picked up by one of the Requires in libshout, so unless none of those devel packages require pkgconfig, then this should not even be necessary. Does this build properly without that BuildRequires? I will do a formal review on this package later tonight or tomorrow if no one else does. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 23:25 EST --- Yes it appears to build fine without the BuildRequires: pkgconfig, it has been removed from my .spec. Honestly, this was my first RPM that actually had to compile something. Everything up until this was just 'copy text files to here', so I guess I was being over-cautious on my buildrequires. I knew I used pkgconfig in my %build section, so it seemed reasonable at the time. You make a good (and obvious, now) point in that libshout or somewhere up the chain has to require pkgconfig or libshout wouldn't be in the pkgconfig database at all. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 23:46 EST --- Brandon, I'll go ahead and sponsor you. Honestly I thought you already were sponsored as I remember you reviewing and (I thought) approving packages back in February. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 07:07 EST --- Part of the problem is that the PHP packaging guidelines are still not finalized, IMHO that PHP packaging guidelines mean the packaging of some PHP code (+ pear, pecl etc.), not the binary plugins for the main php engine. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 10:39 EST --- Part of the problem is that the PHP packaging guidelines are still not finalized, so many reviewers are avoiding PHP packages for the time being. Also, I notice that this is still blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR. There's sort of a conditional sponsorship offer in comment 22, but I haven't seen Matthias around lately and in any case he . I'd suggest checking http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored in case Matthias doesn't comment soon. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 00:19 EST --- Haven't heard or seen anything on this in a long while... anybody out there? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 07:36 EST --- Brandon, Matthias currently is a bit swamped, so let me know if your still interested and then I'll take a look. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
