Bug 1921604
Summary: | Review Request: php-laminas-code4 - Laminas Framework Code component | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Remi Collet <fedora> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, zebob.m |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | zebob.m:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2021-03-19 18:48:53 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1921616 |
Description
Remi Collet
2021-01-28 09:53:44 UTC
Previous version review bug #1792308 Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 204 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-laminas-code4/review- php-laminas-code4/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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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: [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: php-laminas-code4-4.0.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm php-laminas-code4-4.0.0-1.fc35.src.rpm php-laminas-code4.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US apache -> Apache, apace, panache php-laminas-code4.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vhosts -> hosts, ghosts, v hosts php-laminas-code4.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US apache -> Apache, apace, panache php-laminas-code4.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vhosts -> hosts, ghosts, v hosts php-laminas-code4.src: W: strange-permission makesrc.sh 755 php-laminas-code4.src: W: invalid-url Source0: 28a6d70ea8b8bca687d7163300e611ae33baf82a/php-laminas-code4-4.0.0-28a6d70.tgz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Thanks for the review SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32677 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32678 (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-laminas-code4 FEDORA-2021-7a427ecb25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7a427ecb25 FEDORA-2021-73a14c38ea has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-73a14c38ea FEDORA-2021-73a14c38ea has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-73a14c38ea \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-73a14c38ea See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-7a427ecb25 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-7a427ecb25 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7a427ecb25 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-7a427ecb25 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2021-73a14c38ea has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |