Attachment 1039494 Details for Bug 1231318 – review.txt

review.txt

review.txt (text/plain), 6.89 KB, created by Remi Collet on 2015-06-16 13:33:50 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Remi Collet

Created: 2015-06-16 13:33:50 UTC

Size: 6.89 KB

patch

obsolete

>Package Review
>==============
>
>Legend:
>[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
>[ ] = Manual review needed
>
>Scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10069839
>
>===== MUST items =====
>
>[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
>  see phpcompatinfo report, Missing
>  Requires: php-pcre php-spl php-reflection
>
>[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>  Please used normalized github URL
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github
>
>
>===== SHOULD items =====
>
>[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
>  While /usr/share/php/lightncandy is fine for now (and seems ok with curent Guildelines)
>  /usr/share/php/zordius-lightncandy or /usr/share/php/zordius/lightncandy seems better
>  (this single class is not PSR-0 compliant...)
>
>===== COULD items =====
>
>  An autoload is "perhaps" not required for a single class.. but this can change in
>  the future (other classes, dependency), so could have some value.
>
>Generic:
>[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>     Guidelines.
>[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>     found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have
>     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>     /home/extras/SPECS/review/1231318-php-zordius-
>     lightncandy/licensecheck.txt
>[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
>[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
>[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
>[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
>[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
>[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
>[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>     names).
>[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
>[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
>[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
>[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>     Provides are present.
>[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
>[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
>[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
>[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
>[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>     (~1MB) or number of files.
>     Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 4 files.
>[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
>     one supported primary architecture.
>[x]: Package installs properly.
>[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>     Note: No rpmlint messages.
>[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
>     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
>     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
>[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
>     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
>[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>     beginning of %install.
>[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
>[x]: Dist tag is present.
>[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
>[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
>[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
>     work.
>[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
>[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
>[x]: Package is not relocatable.
>[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
>     provided in the spec URL.
>[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
>     %{name}.spec.
>[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
>[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
>
>===== SHOULD items =====
>
>Generic:
>[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
>[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
>     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
>[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
>[?]: Package functions as described.
>[x]: Latest version is packaged.
>[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
>[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
>     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
>[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>     architectures.
>[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
>[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>     files.
>[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
>[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
>[x]: Buildroot is not present
>[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
>     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
>[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
>[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
>[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
>
>===== EXTRA items =====
>
>Generic:
>[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>     Note: No rpmlint messages.
>[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>
>PHP:
>[x]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files.
>     Note: phpCompatInfo version 4.3.0 DB built Jun 16 2015 12:10:27 CEST
>     static analyze results in /home/extras/SPECS/review/1231318-php-
>     zordius-lightncandy/phpci.log
>
>
>Rpmlint
>-------
>Checking: php-zordius-lightncandy-0.21-2.fc23.noarch.rpm
>          php-zordius-lightncandy-0.21-2.fc23.src.rpm
>2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>Rpmlint (installed packages)
>----------------------------
>1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
>
>
>
>Requires
>--------
>php-zordius-lightncandy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    php(language)
>
>
>
>Provides
>--------
>php-zordius-lightncandy:
>    php-composer(zordius/lightncandy)
>    php-zordius-lightncandy
>
>
>
>Source checksums
>----------------
>https://github.com/zordius/lightncandy/archive/v0.21.tar.gz#/php-zordius-lightncandy-0.21.tar.gz :
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 992541fb62f02fbf88c81beda6377d54536182bbefaf65398552a830ffc0eb2d
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 992541fb62f02fbf88c81beda6377d54536182bbefaf65398552a830ffc0eb2d
>
>
>Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04
>Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1231318
>Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
>Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api
>Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, Ruby
>Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 1231318: 1039489 | 1039490 | 1039494 | 1081401