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-Log

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-11 12:40 EST -------
> Description used, is the one provide upstream on the package.xml. I must agree
> it isn't very descriptive, but i don't know if it's a good idea to chance it.

Upstream can be broken in many ways.  We have to change the descriptions for
Perl modules as well.  Since the summary is the first thing the users will see,
it must be as descriptive as possible in the 60 or so characters available.

> For %prep. This comment is from pear template.spec

Do we have a pear template in fedora-rpmdevtools?  I don't see one.

[sanity check]
> Of course i can remove it, but it could be useful for people who want to 
> rebuild
> the RPM for another distro.

We don't usually worry about that, but my point is that rpmlint is our sanity
checker and it's worth discussing whether it should be taught to check for
things like that.

Are you targeting FC4 with these packages?  If not, we should just require the
unbuggy php-pear version once it has been released.

I'm still waiting for either a buildable rawhide or the updated php-pear package
in FC5 to do a full review.  If anyone can answer the question of whether the
scriptlets need Requires(post) and Requires(postun) dependencies, please chip 

Configure bugmail:
------- 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

Reply via email to