Attachment 707345 Details for Bug 916405 – 916405-php-Assetic-review.txt

916405-php-Assetic-review.txt

review.txt (text/plain), 7.02 KB, created by Remi Collet on 2013-03-09 08:19:17 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Remi Collet

Created: 2013-03-09 08:19:17 UTC

Size: 7.02 KB

patch

obsolete

>
>Package Review
>==============
>
>Key:
>[x] = Pass
>[!] = Fail
>[-] = Not applicable
>[?] = Not evaluated
>[ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
>[!]: Latest version is packaged.
>	1.0.4 is tagged.
>
>Why do you take a github snapshot, when upstream properly tag each release and provides a tarball ?
>
>From guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github
>	If the upstream does create tarballs you should use them as tarballs provide an easier trail for people auditing the packages. 
>
>Ex : https://github.com/kriswallsmith/assetic/archive/v1.1.0-alpha4.tar.gz
>
>[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
>	Where do you find info about the twig / symfony min / max version ?
>
>===== MUST items =====
>
>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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
>[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
>[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
>[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
>     "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
>     licensecheck in /home/extras/SPECS/review/916405-php-
>     Assetic/licensecheck.txt
>[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
>     names).
>[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
>[x]: 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.
>[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
>[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
>[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
>[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
>     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 5 files.
>[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
>     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
>[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>     beginning of %install.
>[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
>[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
>[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
>[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
>[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 %doc.
>[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
>     work.
>[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
>[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
>[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
>[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
>
>PHP:
>[x]: Package requires php-common instead of php.
>
>===== SHOULD items =====
>
>Generic:
>[-]: 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.
>[!]: 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.
>[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>     architectures.
>[-]: %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]: Dist tag is present.
>[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
>[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
>[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
>[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
>
>===== EXTRA items =====
>
>Generic:
>[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
>     arched.
>[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
>[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>
>PHP:
>[x]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files.
>     Note:  Memory: 18.75Mb Required PHP 5.3.0 (min) phpci static analyze
>     results in /home/extras/SPECS/review/916405-php-Assetic/phpci.log
>
>
>Rpmlint
>-------
>Checking: php-Assetic-1.1.0-0.1.alpha3.fc19.noarch.rpm
>php-Assetic.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pecl -> peck, peel, pecs
>php-Assetic.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US apc -> ac, cap, ape
>1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>Rpmlint (installed packages)
>----------------------------
># rpmlint php-Assetic
>php-Assetic.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pecl -> peck, peel, pecs
>php-Assetic.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US apc -> ac, cap, ape
>1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
># echo 'rpmlint-done:'
>
>
>
>Requires
>--------
>php-Assetic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    php-common
>    php-ctype
>    php-curl
>    php-date
>    php-hash
>    php-json
>    php-lessphp
>    php-pcre
>    php-pear(pear.symfony.com/Process)
>    php-pear(pear.twig-project.org/Twig)
>    php-spl
>    php-standard
>    php-tokenizer
>
>
>
>Provides
>--------
>php-Assetic:
>    php-Assetic
>
>
>
>MD5-sum check
>-------------
>https://github.com/kriswallsmith/assetic/archive/6f580dd1cf03d6d80a3885921ca068b774224161/php-Assetic-1.1.0-6f580dd1cf03d6d80a3885921ca068b774224161.tar.gz :
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 269aae9802094a2a0dd9cbb623d70b275f6b98609c100264d51bd066db3d51d0
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 269aae9802094a2a0dd9cbb623d70b275f6b98609c100264d51bd066db3d51d0
>
>
>Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29
>Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
>Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 916405

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 916405: 707336 | 707345