[pkg-php-pear] ITP: php-symfony-process -- Symfony PHP Framework - Process component

Thomas Goirand zigo at debian.org
Fri Jun 28 02:14:31 UTC 2013

On 06/28/2013 07:51 AM, David Prévot wrote:
> Hi andrea,
> Le 27/06/2013 18:49, David Prévot a écrit :
>> Le 27/06/2013 18:35, andrea rota a écrit :
>>> an updated initial package is available on git.debian.org:
>>> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-php/php-symfony-process.git;a=summary
>> Assuming you already took into account the previous remarks, I’m happy
>> to have a second closer look at the php-symfony-* packages
> First, I’m wondering about advices in http://pkg-php.alioth.debian.org/
> (so these ones are addressed to the usual team members):
> - Why enforce dh 8 now that dh 9 is in the previous stable?

Hi David,

We don't enforce dh 8, it's just that the text was written some times
ago, and was never updated. Also, if I'm not mistaking, dh short style
was introduced with dh 8, no? Anyway, dh 9 is better, I agree.

> - Why differ from the usual gbp workflow with debian-sid/upstream-sid
> instead of master/upstream?

master/upstream is IMO bad: "master" doesn't express anything, and gives
no clue what the branch is for.

Also, we don't only track the Sid branches, but also what's in stable
and old stable. Once the stable is released, we create: debian-wheezy /
upstream-wheezy. On many packages, we also have debian-squeeze /
upstream-squeeze too.

> - Why impose an export-dir? Isn’t this part of workflow better suited in
> one ~/.gbp.conf for those who care?

Because the default of gbp is simply bad, and this helps newbies (we
have a lot of people coming and going in the team).

> Then, some nitpicking details:
> Framework should be framework in Description from debian/control.
> The email address of the upstream copyright holder should appear in
> debian/copyright.
> Please, consider renaming debian/php-symfony-process.docs and
> debian/php-symfony-process.install into debian/docs and debian/install
> (that will ease the comparison/copy between php-symfony- packages as
> long as they produce only one binary package).
> I don’t have further comments, so I’m happy to look at the other
> packages once those issues are fixed or if you give rationales not to.
> Regards
> David

IMO, the long description should have:

 Symfony is a PHP framework, a set of tools and a development


 This package provides the Process component, which executes commands in

Because describing the Symfony framework should (IMO) appear in all
description of all Symfony packages, and it may be better to read this
way for anyone using the package. Also the paragraph which doesn't
describe the Symfony framework should be, IMO, longer. The only words
that are helpful are "which executes commands in sub-processes" (the
rest is in the package name itself). Please extend this long description.

Last, and that's the most important bit that *must* be fixed before
upload, the resulting package doesn't depend on pear-symfony-channel. I
don't think it is right to put: ${phpcomposer:Debian-require}. I am
guessing it is because ${phppear:Debian-Depends},
${phppear:Debian-Recommends} and ${phppear:Debian-Breaks} are missing.
It would also be a good idea to use ${phppear:summary} and
${phppear:description} if they produce a correct output (I didn't check
if they do, sometimes we don't use them if they don't).


Thomas Goirand (zigo)

More information about the pkg-php-pear mailing list