Bug 2168102

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 License", "*No copyright*
     BSD 3-Clause License". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/php-sebastian-
     comparator-5/2168102-php-sebastian-comparator5/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.
[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.
[!]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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.
[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]: 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: 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: 6.5.5@7852058 static analyze results in
     /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/php-sebastian-
     comparator-5/2168102-php-sebastian-comparator5/phpci.log


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: php-sebastian-comparator5-5.0.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          php-sebastian-comparator5-5.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
==================================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpvq81b6cl')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

php-sebastian-comparator5.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: php-sebastian-comparator5-5.0.0-72f01e6.tgz
===================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.3 s =====================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Requires
--------
php-sebastian-comparator5 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (php-composer(sebastian/diff) >= 5.0 with php-composer(sebastian/diff) < 6)
    (php-composer(sebastian/exporter) >= 5.0 with php-composer(sebastian/exporter) < 6)
    php(language)
    php-composer(fedora/autoloader)
    php-date
    php-dom
    php-mbstring
    php-spl



Provides
--------
php-sebastian-comparator5:
    php-composer(sebastian/comparator)
    php-sebastian-comparator5



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2168102 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, PHP
Disabled plugins: Ruby, Haskell, Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, R, Java, Perl, Python, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comments:
a) Builds on all architectures:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/phpunit10/build/6008342/
b) Tests conditional on phpunit10
c) phpcompatinfo does not seem to need spl

Extensions Analysis
-------------------

   Extension REF      EXT min/Max PHP min/Max PHP suggest 
   core      core     5.0.0       5.0.0                   
   date      date     5.5.0       7.0.0alpha1             
   dom       dom      5.0.0       8.0.0alpha1             
   mbstring  mbstring 4.3.0       7.1.0       4.3.0       
   standard  standard 4.2.0       4.2.0                   
   Total [5]                      8.0.0alpha1

Strange, which version of phpcompatinfo are you running ?

Using phpCompatInfo version 7.0.0 DB version 5.5.0

Extensions Analysis
-------------------

   Extension REF      EXT min/Max PHP min/Max PHP suggest 
   core      core     5.0.0       7.0.2                   
   date      date     5.5.0       7.0.0alpha1             
   dom       dom      5.0.0       8.0.0alpha1             
   mbstring  mbstring 4.3.0       7.1.0       4.3.0       
   spl       spl      5.1.0       5.3.0                   
   standard  standard 4.2.0       4.2.0                   
   Total [6]                      8.0.0alpha1             


BTW, spl doesn't really matter, always there

More check:  /usr/share/php/SebastianBergmann/Comparator5/exceptions/RuntimeException.php use https://www.php.net/RuntimeException provided by SPL extension

Ok,
$ phpcompatinfo --version
6.5.5@7852058

Approved.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-sebastian-comparator5

Thanks for the review

SCM requests
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/54645
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/54646

FEDORA-2023-2c3ac66418 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2c3ac66418

FEDORA-2023-2c3ac66418 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-2c3ac66418 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2c3ac66418

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

FEDORA-2023-2c3ac66418 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.