Bug 1812855

Version 0.3.1

Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-rpminfo.git/plain/php-pecl-rpminfo.spec?h=fedora&id=77e0921cd099541f9d6a785521cbddae52aea4f1
SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-rpminfo-0.3.1-1.fedora.src.rpm

Version 0.4.0 (promoted to stable)

Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-rpminfo.git/plain/php-pecl-rpminfo.spec?h=fedora&id=026e4442a28c408561fc37acc70e5576ee50611e
SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-rpminfo-0.4.0-1.fedora.src.rpm

Taking this review.

Version 0.4.1

Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-rpminfo.git/plain/php-pecl-rpminfo.spec?h=fedora&id=62db2cdbce479d5cb0b46295e512eb5accf4874a
SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-rpminfo-0.4.1-1.fedora.src.rpm

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3)
> Taking this review.

Have you find some time to start working on this the review ?

Version 0.4.2

Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-rpminfo.git/plain/php-pecl-rpminfo.spec?h=fedora&id=985ead86de7237960570d4ad9fe56a0e5158cc75
SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-rpminfo-0.4.2-1.fedora.src.rpm

> # License: CC-BY-SA
> # http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

I'm not sure this is an okay license for spec files. Creative Commons discourages the usage of CC licenses for code. The FPCA already defaults spec files to be licensed MIT[1], can you license it as something that makes more sense for code?

[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement

Perhaps, I'm the only one, but I really think the "default" license in FPCA is a mess, and that we need to have explicit license on all spec file.

When I start adding a License headers on all my spec files, I raise the question on "legal", and the answer was that this is ok.
I now have hundreds of spec files using this license, and don't plan to change this.

P.S., and I think spec file are more documentation / parameters (for rpmbuild) than real code ;)

Can you please use the spec you posted for review for building the SRPM? fedora-review indicates there is significant difference (lots of SCLized stuff, etc.).

Sorry, but above links are the proper ones.

As explained in initial description

> NOTICE: fedora-review is unable to download proper spec file (kown issue)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751630
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505030

Updated to 0.5.0: 
https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-rpminfo.git/commit/?h=fedora&id=5b4f18ca1dc6febc3fe63594373b84ac633a2266


Spec URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/php-pecl-rpminfo.spec
SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-rpminfo-0.5.0-1.fedora.src.rpm

Scratch build: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-rpminfo-0.5.0-1.fedora.src.rpm


Notice: temporary used Spec URL should workaround fedora-review issue.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[-]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

PHP:
[!]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files.
     Note: phpcompatinfo not found. Install php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo
     package to get a more comprehensive php review.
     See: url: undefined


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: php-pecl-rpminfo-0.5.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          php-pecl-rpminfo-debuginfo-0.5.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          php-pecl-rpminfo-debugsource-0.5.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          php-pecl-rpminfo-0.5.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
php-pecl-rpminfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librpm -> lib rpm, lib-rpm, library
php-pecl-rpminfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpmvercmp 
php-pecl-rpminfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpmdbinfo -> informed
php-pecl-rpminfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rerieve -> retrieve, reprieve, relieve
php-pecl-rpminfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpmdbsearch -> searcher
php-pecl-rpminfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librpm -> lib rpm, lib-rpm, library
php-pecl-rpminfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpmvercmp 
php-pecl-rpminfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpmdbinfo -> informed
php-pecl-rpminfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rerieve -> retrieve, reprieve, relieve
php-pecl-rpminfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpmdbsearch -> searcher
php-pecl-rpminfo.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 33: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires:       php(zend-abi) = %{php_zend_api}
php-pecl-rpminfo.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 34: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires:       php(api) = %{php_core_api}
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: php-pecl-rpminfo-debuginfo-0.5.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
php-pecl-rpminfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librpm -> lib rpm, lib-rpm, library
php-pecl-rpminfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpmvercmp 
php-pecl-rpminfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpmdbinfo -> informed
php-pecl-rpminfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rerieve -> retrieve, reprieve, relieve
php-pecl-rpminfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpmdbsearch -> searcher
php-pecl-rpminfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pecl.php.net/package/rpminfo <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
php-pecl-rpminfo-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pecl.php.net/package/rpminfo <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
php-pecl-rpminfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pecl.php.net/package/rpminfo <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
php-pecl-rpminfo: /usr/lib64/php-zts/modules/rpminfo.so
php-pecl-rpminfo: /usr/lib64/php/modules/rpminfo.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://pecl.php.net/get/rpminfo-0.5.0.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 65c92e39d83153111dcbecf7f1679356b51faf2cc1d4a4b8271a557cdd112f82
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65c92e39d83153111dcbecf7f1679356b51faf2cc1d4a4b8271a557cdd112f82


Requires
--------
php-pecl-rpminfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(php-pecl-rpminfo)
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    librpm.so.9()(64bit)
    librpmio.so.9()(64bit)
    php(api)
    php(zend-abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

php-pecl-rpminfo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

php-pecl-rpminfo-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
php-pecl-rpminfo:
    config(php-pecl-rpminfo)
    php-pecl(rpminfo)
    php-pecl(rpminfo)(x86-64)
    php-pecl-rpminfo
    php-pecl-rpminfo(x86-64)
    php-rpminfo
    php-rpminfo(x86-64)

php-pecl-rpminfo-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    php-pecl-rpminfo-debuginfo
    php-pecl-rpminfo-debuginfo(x86-64)

php-pecl-rpminfo-debugsource:
    php-pecl-rpminfo-debugsource
    php-pecl-rpminfo-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1812855 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, PHP
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, Java, R, Perl, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

No serious issues of note, so...

PACKAGE APPROVED.

Thanks for the review!


SCM requests
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/24172
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/24173
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/24174

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-pecl-rpminfo

FEDORA-2020-5434b15d0a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5434b15d0a

FEDORA-2020-451c1d365f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-451c1d365f

FEDORA-2020-451c1d365f has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-451c1d365f \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-451c1d365f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-5434b15d0a has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-5434b15d0a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5434b15d0a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-451c1d365f has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-5434b15d0a has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.