Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/91d764fa902cedfa1f8bddb32f844409290035d1/SPECS/php-pecl-xmldiff.spec SRPM URL: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora20/php-pecl-xmldiff/php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: The extension is able to produce diffs of two XML documents and then to apply the difference to the source document. The diff is a XML document containing copy/insert/delete instruction nodes in human readable format. DOMDocument objects, local files and strings in memory can be processed. Fedora Account System Username: hubbitus
Hi Pavel, An informal review as I learn packaging guidelines. Notes are inline. Cheers, Sam 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. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/swilson/fedora/1094864-php-pecl-xmldiff/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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 %doc. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: 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 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 ===== 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. [-]: 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. # Scratch build output http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6824362 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: 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: [x]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files. Note: phpci static analyze results in /home/swilson/fedora/1094864-php- pecl-xmldiff/phpci.log Rpmlint ------- Checking: php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-1.fc19.src.rpm php-pecl-xmldiff.src: E: specfile-error sh: php-config: command not found php-pecl-xmldiff.src: E: specfile-error error: Macro %php_extdir has empty body 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. # Expected as my workstation has no php-devel to expand macro Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint php-pecl-xmldiff 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- php-pecl-xmldiff (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/pecl config(php-pecl-xmldiff) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdiffmark.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) php(api) php(zend-abi) php-xml rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- php-pecl-xmldiff: config(php-pecl-xmldiff) php-pecl-xmldiff php-pecl-xmldiff(x86-64) php-xmldiff php-xmldiff(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://pecl.php.net/get/xmldiff-0.9.2.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 60d7d7fde2ebb695ae2cb26803153ad07a6146e0d70c102b3403131c86177550 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 60d7d7fde2ebb695ae2cb26803153ad07a6146e0d70c102b3403131c86177550
So, no issues have been found so far?
(In reply to Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) from comment #2) > So, no issues have been found so far? None as far as I can tell. I cannot yet formally review your package though so we wait. Cheers, Sam
Quick notes: - unused macro php_apiver - unneeded default value php_extdir (if really you want to provides default value for it, you also need to provide default one for php_inidir) - please run upstream provided test suite - please install doc in %pecl_docdir (so "pecl list-files xmldiff" will be ok, I know this is only explicitly written in Guildelines for pear package...) - prefix ini file with numeric value in rawhide %if 0%{?fedora} < 21 # After dom %global ini_name %{pecl_name}.ini %else # After 20-dom %global ini_name 40-%{pecl_name}.ini %endif - filtering private is no more needed in f20+ (and rhel7) - why don't you provide the -devel sub package ? (with the installed header, and perhaps the upstream test suite... useful as documentation) - requires Requires php-dom%{_isa} and php-libxml%{?_isa} instead of php-xml (from source code): xmldiff.cpp: ZEND_MOD_REQUIRED("dom") xmldiff.cpp: ZEND_MOD_REQUIRED("libxml")
Be consistent, if you protect %{pecl_uninstall} you should also protect %{pecl_install} (or simply don't protect both, as now defined everywhere, except RHEL-5)
>- filtering private is no more needed in f20+ (and rhel7) Obviously i've missing something. Where it stated? Meantime if it is not targeted to El5 i'm prefer leave it for Fedora 19. >- why don't you provide the -devel sub package ? (with the installed header, and perhaps the upstream test suite... useful as documentation) I don't know anything which may use it, do you? Is it have worth at all? Other issues addressed. Changes: https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/15c7414d9415d4755c37f0ee8e9ff9897b20159f Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/15c7414d9415d4755c37f0ee8e9ff9897b20159f/SPECS/php-pecl-xmldiff.spec Srpm: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora20/php-pecl-xmldiff/php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-2.fc20.src.rpm One additional question which I had been intended ask in ML. That pecl extension require dom.so also to be turned on. For tests I do that explicitly and provide requires. But what if that installed, but then disabled by user on target system? Then installation of php-pecl-xmldiff lead to malfunction extension. I could add "extension=dom.so" before this extension itself. Is it documented anywhere?
(In reply to Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) from comment #6) > >- filtering private is no more needed in f20+ (and rhel7) > Obviously i've missing something. Where it stated? Meantime if it is not > targeted to El5 i'm prefer leave it for Fedora 19. You can conditionalize it (which make easier to detect when could be dropped) %if 0%{?fedora} < 20 && 0%{?rhel} < 7 > > >- why don't you provide the -devel sub package ? (with the installed header, and perhaps the upstream test suite... useful as documentation) > I don't know anything which may use it, do you? Is it have worth at all? I don't know anything which use it yet. I'm used to follow upstream desing. But will be easy to fix if needed later... Your choice. > mv {CREDITS,LICENSE} ./%{pecl_docdir}/ > %doc %peclName-%{version}/%{pecl_docdir}/{CREDITS,LICENSE} This result as /usr/share/doc/php-pecl-xmldiff /usr/share/doc/php-pecl-xmldiff/CREDITS /usr/share/doc/php-pecl-xmldiff/LICENSE While expected is (check: "pecl list xmldiff") /usr/share/doc/pecl/xmldiff /usr/share/doc/pecl/xmldiff/CREDITS /usr/share/doc/pecl/xmldiff/LICENSE
(In reply to Remi Collet from comment #7) > (In reply to Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) from comment #6) > You can conditionalize it (which make easier to detect when could be dropped) > %if 0%{?fedora} < 20 && 0%{?rhel} < 7 That was already stated in comment, but let it be if you insist. > > mv {CREDITS,LICENSE} ./%{pecl_docdir}/ > > %doc %peclName-%{version}/%{pecl_docdir}/{CREDITS,LICENSE} > > This result as > /usr/share/doc/php-pecl-xmldiff > /usr/share/doc/php-pecl-xmldiff/CREDITS > /usr/share/doc/php-pecl-xmldiff/LICENSE > > While expected is (check: "pecl list xmldiff") > /usr/share/doc/pecl/xmldiff > /usr/share/doc/pecl/xmldiff/CREDITS > /usr/share/doc/pecl/xmldiff/LICENSE Interesting it is because it is marked as %doc: + cd /home/pasha/SOFT/rpmbuild/BUILD + cd php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2 + DOCDIR=/home/pasha/SOFT/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-2.fc20.x86_64/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-xmldiff + export DOCDIR + /usr/bin/mkdir -p /home/pasha/SOFT/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-2.fc20.x86_64/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-xmldiff + cp -pr xmldiff-0.9.2//usr/share/doc/pecl/xmldiff/CREDITS xmldiff-0.9.2//usr/share/doc/pecl/xmldiff/LICENSE /home/pasha/SOFT/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-2.fc20.x86_64/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-xmldiff Do you suggest not mark it as %doc and include as just files? Then I think we violate documentation rules: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation . One more way is try redefine DOCDIR environment variable in spec, but it also looks not so correct for me.
For %doc. If files are in the source tree, they are copied in %_docdir and mark as doc If files are in the install tree, they stay in their location and mark as doc. So, see lot of existing pear/pecl packages (in rawhide, all mine are fixed to use this, and so conform to the PHP Guidelines). Ex: %install ... install -Dpm 644 LICENSE %{buildroot}%{pecl_docdir}/%{pecl_name}/LICENSE %file %doc %{pecl_docdir}/%{pecl_name} $ rpm -q --docfiles php-pecl-xmldiff /usr/share/doc/pecl/xmldiff/LICENSE
Thanks. Changes: https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/ef13554c5447c41db42bd3224a507dc975de297c Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/ef13554c5447c41db42bd3224a507dc975de297c/SPECS/php-pecl-xmldiff.spec Srpm: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora20/php-pecl-xmldiff/php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-3.fc20.src.rpm
Created attachment 895520 [details] review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1094864 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
MUST [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Must own /usr/share/doc/pecl/xmldiff -%doc %{pecl_docdir}/%peclName/CREDITS -%doc %{pecl_docdir}/%peclName/LICENSE +%doc %{pecl_docdir}/%peclName Notice: [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package Not provided on packager choice. Could be add later.
Changes: https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/84b526b1d6149e7a771e597ae5d794b2a5f36b40 Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/84b526b1d6149e7a771e597ae5d794b2a5f36b40/SPECS/php-pecl-xmldiff.spec Srpm: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora20/php-pecl-xmldiff/php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-4.fc20.src.rpm P.S. I assume you are by mistake set flag fedora-cvs=?, I change it on fedora-review=? Instead.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. === APPROVED ===
Thank you very much for the review. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: php-pecl-xmldiff Short Description: Pecl package for XML diff and merge Owners: hubbitus Branches: f19 f20 f21 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-4.fc19
php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-4.fc20
php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
php-pecl-xmldiff-0.9.2-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
Should be closed for a while.