Spec URL: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-lightncandy.spec SRPM URL: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-lightncandy-0.21-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This is bundled as part of mediawiki and it needs to be broken out. Fedora Account System Username: mooninite $ rpmlint php-lightncandy.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-lightncandy-0.21-1.fc21.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
* Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Naming_scheme, name should be "php-zordius-lightncandy" * Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Composer_registered_Packages, need to provide "php-composer(zordius/lightncandy) = %{version}" * Tests are provided so they should be run in %check
http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-zordius-lightncandy.spec http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-zordius-lightncandy-0.21-2.fc21.src.rpm
Created attachment 1039489 [details] phpci.log phpCompatInfo version 4.3.0 DB built Jun 16 2015 12:10:27 CEST static analyze results (full tree)
Created attachment 1039490 [details] phpci-src.log phpCompatInfo version 4.3.0 DB built Jun 16 2015 12:10:27 CEST static analyze results ("src" only for "Requires")
Created attachment 1039494 [details] review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04
===== MUST items ===== [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. see phpcompatinfo report, Missing Requires: php-pcre php-spl php-reflection [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Please used normalized github URL https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github ===== SHOULD items ===== [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. While /usr/share/php/lightncandy is fine for now (and seems ok with curent Guildelines) /usr/share/php/zordius-lightncandy or /usr/share/php/zordius/lightncandy seems better (this single class is not PSR-0 compliant...) ===== COULD items ===== An autoload is "perhaps" not required for a single class.. but this can change in the future (other classes, dependency), so could have some value.
(In reply to Remi Collet from comment #6) > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > see phpcompatinfo report, Missing > Requires: php-pcre php-spl php-reflection Please explain why these are Requires. The php(language) requires draws in the same packages. Do I need 3 duplicate Requires entries? If so, where is this in the Packaging Guidelines? > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > Please used normalized github URL > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github Except that this project produces a release tarball. The Source URL is OK. > [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. > While /usr/share/php/lightncandy is fine for now (and seems ok with curent > Guildelines) > /usr/share/php/zordius-lightncandy or /usr/share/php/zordius/lightncandy > seems better > (this single class is not PSR-0 compliant...) I'm willing to change the directory structure to whatever is more appropriate. Pending other changes I will use /usr/share/php/zordius/lightncandy. > An autoload is "perhaps" not required for a single class.. but this can > change in > the future (other classes, dependency), so could have some value. This stuff (speaking in general here) is not declared in the Packaging Guidelines and I had no idea that loaders were available outside of composer. 1. Please get composer in Fedora. 2. Please change the PHP Packaging Guidelines. 3. If there is documentation I have not seen, please share it.
(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #7) > (In reply to Remi Collet from comment #6) > > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > > see phpcompatinfo report, Missing > > Requires: php-pcre php-spl php-reflection > > Please explain why these are Requires. The php(language) requires draws in > the same packages. Do I need 3 duplicate Requires entries? If so, where is > this in the Packaging Guidelines? From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Extensions_Requires "... on all of the dependent extensions ..." Explanation: current layout (which package provide which ext.) have changed (more sub-packages, more shared extensions) and could change again in the future. And some ext can disappear (mysql, mssql, sybase_ct in php 7) or move to pecl. Summary: package name are not reliable, only extension names are "stable". > > > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > > Please used normalized github URL > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github > > Except that this project produces a release tarball. The Source URL is OK. The used URL is the "tag" URL which is exactly what the Guidelines explain to not use. Feel free to raise discussion to FPC for clarification. > > [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. > > While /usr/share/php/lightncandy is fine for now (and seems ok with curent > > Guildelines) > > /usr/share/php/zordius-lightncandy or /usr/share/php/zordius/lightncandy > > seems better > > (this single class is not PSR-0 compliant...) > > I'm willing to change the directory structure to whatever is more > appropriate. Pending other changes I will use > /usr/share/php/zordius/lightncandy. > > > An autoload is "perhaps" not required for a single class.. but this can > > change in > > the future (other classes, dependency), so could have some value. This is only a "could". > This stuff (speaking in general here) is not declared in the Packaging > Guidelines and I had no idea that loaders were available outside of composer. > > 1. Please get composer in Fedora. See #1225134 But this will have no impact on packaging. Composer is designed to duplicate everything on every project, not something we want. > 2. Please change the PHP Packaging Guidelines. Again, feel free to open a proposal to FPC > 3. If there is documentation I have not seen, please share it. There is no specific documentation about autoloader, only experience: - keep providing autoloader which were available in PEAR channel (don't break) - moving various packages to github sources (symfony, ZF, ezc, bartlett...) - packaging various "app" which use system libraries (see phpunit, phpcompatinfo, composer...) - trying to make things easy to use And perhaps in the future this experience will be proposed as a Guidelines (each library must provide a autloader file to be easily consumed...)
(In reply to Remi Collet from comment #8) > From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Extensions_Requires > "... on all of the dependent extensions ..." Fixed > The used URL is the "tag" URL which is exactly what the Guidelines explain > to not use. > > Feel free to raise discussion to FPC for clarification. It has been raised. Many times. Here is an email this month that shows the correct URL that I am using. Other packages follow this (as well as other packages I maintain). https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2015-June/010696.html The guidelines even mention to use the release tarball: "If the upstream does create tarballs you should use them as tarballs provide an easier trail for people auditing the packages." > This is only a "could". Added. http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-zordius-lightncandy.spec http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-zordius-lightncandy-0.21-3.fc22.src.rpm
> The guidelines even mention to use the release tarball: > > "If the upstream does create tarballs you should use them as tarballs provide an easier trail for people auditing the packages." Except upstream does not create release tarballs. That URL you are using is automatically generated by Github. Look at this project as an example: https://github.com/Cangjians/libcangjie/releases I'm upstream, and I created myself the libcangjie-%{version}.tar.gz files, which I uploaded to Github. But the "Source code (zip)" and "Source code (tar.gz)" links are automatically generated by Github. I know, because I never uploaded those files. :) In the case of your upstream, the only tarballs published are the automatically generated Github ones. As a result, Remi is correct, you should not use those URLs.
(In reply to Mathieu Bridon from comment #10) > As a result, Remi is correct, you should not use those URLs. Bring it up with FPC to change it then.
(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #11) > (In reply to Mathieu Bridon from comment #10) > > As a result, Remi is correct, you should not use those URLs. > > Bring it up with FPC to change it then. Well no, the guidelines are entirely correct. > Github provides a mechanism to create tarballs on demand, either from a > specific commit revision, or from a specific tag. If the upstream does > not create tarballs for releases, you can use this mechanism to produce > them. If the upstream does create tarballs you should use them as > tarballs provide an easier trail for people auditing the packages. In this case, upstream does not produce tarballs. > For a number of reasons (immutability, availability, uniqueness), you > must use the full commit revision hash when referring to the sources. This is what Remi told you: if you use the automatically generated tarballs, you must not use the git tag in the URL, you must instead use the full commit hash.
What do you want to change, it's clearly mentioned in the guidelines: > Github provides a mechanism to create tarballs on demand, either from a specific commit revision, or from a specific tag. If the upstream does not create tarballs for releases, you can use this mechanism to produce them. If the upstream does create tarballs you should use them as tarballs provide an easier trail for people auditing the packages. Sources: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github And the guidelines are on the wiki, nowhere else.
Arf, missed the important part in my quote: > For a number of reasons (immutability, availability, uniqueness), you must use the full commit revision hash when referring to the sources.
The wording is being clarified to define how I explained it in comment 9. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2015-June/010739.html If you want to wait for FPC to make the final change that is fine, but feel free to continue the review.
Giving up on this one.
FPC has made the final ruling today and upheld the ability to use the SourceURL that I am using. http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-07-02/fpc.2015-07-02-16.00.log.html In case people have further objections they should know that git adds the commit ID to the tarball as a comment.
Build fail: + phpunit -v --filter test PHPUnit 4.8.11 by Sebastian Bergmann and contributors. Runtime: PHP 5.6.14 Configuration: /builddir/build/BUILD/lightncandy-0.21/phpunit.xml Warning: The Xdebug extension is not loaded No code coverage will be generated. ............................................................... 63 / 228 ( 27%) ........................................................EE..... 126 / 228 ( 55%) ............................................................... 189 / 228 ( 82%) ....................................... Time: 334 ms, Memory: 4.50Mb There were 2 errors: 1) HandlebarsSpecTest::testSpecs Missing argument 1 for HandlebarsSpecTest::testSpecs() /builddir/build/BUILD/lightncandy-0.21/tests/handlebarsSpecTest.php:12 2) MustacheSpecTest::testSpecs Missing argument 1 for MustacheSpecTest::testSpecs() /builddir/build/BUILD/lightncandy-0.21/tests/mustacheSpecTest.php:12 FAILURES! Tests: 228, Assertions: 405, Errors: 2. Available newer release 0.22 (2015/07/28) "Buildarch: noarch" should be "BuildArch: noarch"
Yeah, there were some changes in PHPUnit that I have to work around. When I created this review PHPUnit was a much older version... :/
New spec: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-zordius-lightncandy.spec New SRPM: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-zordius-lightncandy-0.22-1.fc22.src.rpm
have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243761 ?
Created attachment 1081401 [details] phpci.log lightncandy-0.22
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1231318 -php-zordius-lightncandy/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/php/zordius [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/php/zordius [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 [-]: 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 61440 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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: phpCompatInfo version 4.4.0 DB built Jul 20 2015 15:06:38 CEST static analyze results in /home/gil/1231318-php-zordius- lightncandy/phpci.log Rpmlint ------- Checking: php-zordius-lightncandy-0.22-1.fc24.noarch.rpm php-zordius-lightncandy-0.22-1.fc24.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: File o directory non esistente 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- php-zordius-lightncandy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): php(language) php-pcre php-reflection php-spl Provides -------- php-zordius-lightncandy: php-composer(zordius/lightncandy) php-zordius-lightncandy Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mustache/spec/archive/83b0721610a4e11832e83df19c73ace3289972b9.tar.gz#/php-zordius-lightncandy-mustache.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3b4c2a730de7dfdb2ef8035bb6ddfa2091d66418c665b57a039f8ddd494ebd48 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3b4c2a730de7dfdb2ef8035bb6ddfa2091d66418c665b57a039f8ddd494ebd48 https://github.com/zordius/lightncandy/archive/v0.22.tar.gz#/php-zordius-lightncandy-0.22.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6a719340b5492873279930d18dc4a7a6a98a7015a8963aa8a395b84f70451a28 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6a719340b5492873279930d18dc4a7a6a98a7015a8963aa8a395b84f70451a28 https://github.com/kasperisager/handlebars-spec/archive/df077dd262eea766648af0b6efd8a22e44c78178.tar.gz#/php-zordius-lightncandy-handlebars.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : de637882c99e3716ac913107418afc0dc671a781dbc1cb433ed73d206f52561c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : de637882c99e3716ac913107418afc0dc671a781dbc1cb433ed73d206f52561c Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1231318 --plugins PHP -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
NON blocking issues: [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/php/zordius
New spec: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-zordius-lightncandy.spec New SRPM: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-zordius-lightncandy-0.22-2.fc22.src.rpm
Seems all right now APPROVED
php-zordius-lightncandy-0.22-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0df9649575
php-zordius-lightncandy-0.22-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-5ee08d4b8c
php-zordius-lightncandy-0.22-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update php-zordius-lightncandy' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0df9649575
php-zordius-lightncandy-0.22-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update php-zordius-lightncandy' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-5ee08d4b8c
php-zordius-lightncandy-0.22-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
php-zordius-lightncandy-0.22-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.