https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424721
--- Comment #4 from Randy Barlow <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Remi Collet from comment #3) > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > > From PHP Guildelines > A PSR-4 [2] compliant library would put its PHP files in > /usr/share/php/<Vendor Name> in a PSR-0 compliant tree. > > So should be /usr/share/php/ZipStream Hello Remi! Oh I didn't realize that the string "ZipStream" inside the composer.json's psr section was a clue about where the package should be installed. I assumed that the vendor from packagist should be used. Now I understand better, thanks! I've opted to go with ZipStream as you suggested above. If we hit a conflict later, we can fix it at that time I believe. > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > > From composer.json > > "require": { > "php": ">= 5.6", > "ext-mbstring": "*" > }, > From phpcompatinfo report > > Requires PHP 5.3.0 (min), PHP 5.3.0 (all) > > This usually means upstream don't want to support EOL PHP version. > => packager choise > > Do you need it in EPEL ? (build ok en epel-6 and epel-7) I've updated it to be 5.6 to reflect upstream's wishes. I don't plan to put Ampache into EPEL 6 or 7 at this time, so this package doesn't need to go there either (but I'm willing to add it later if requested). > Tips: > > --bootstrap is not needed when the value in already defined in phpunit.xml > --no-coverage avoid the "Error: No code coverage driver is available" (but > requires phpunit > 4) I've made both of these changes as well. New files here: Spec URL: https://bowlofeggs.fedorapeople.org/php-maennchen-zipstream-php.spec SRPM URL: https://bowlofeggs.fedorapeople.org/php-maennchen-zipstream-php-0.4.1-2.fc26.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
