Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-psr.git/plain/php-pecl-psr.spec?id=fd64ee8559d12e886afa45ec30ab1fe318758e4e SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-psr-0.4.0-1.fedora.src.rpm Description: This extension provides the accepted PSR interfaces, so they can be used in an extension. Fedora Account System Username: remi ---- Rawhide scratch build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25514897 EPEL-7 scratch build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25514905 Notice: because of bug #1505030 fedora-reveiw is unable to handle the spec download
- The license seems to be BSD, not PHP. Please correct the license tag Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 142 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-pecl-psr/review-php-pecl- psr/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/tests/pecl, /usr/share/tests [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. [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]: 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 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 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 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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: [x]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files. Note: phpCompatInfo version 5.0.11 DB version 1.29.0 built Feb 02 2018 07:35:58 CET static analyze results in /home/bob/packaging/review/php- pecl-psr/review-php-pecl-psr/phpci.log Rpmlint ------- Checking: php-pecl-psr-0.4.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-psr-devel-0.4.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-psr-debuginfo-0.4.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-psr-debugsource-0.4.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-psr-0.4.0-1.fc29.src.rpm php-pecl-psr-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C php-pecl-psr developer files (header) php-pecl-psr-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation php-pecl-psr.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 39: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires: php(zend-abi) = %{php_zend_api} php-pecl-psr.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 40: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires: php(api) = %{php_core_api} 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
Good catch again... (copy/paste issue) Fixed by https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-psr.git/commit/?id=5136b7f0e79f055e688f6c5bb4d2cc5e64258a38 Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-psr.git/plain/php-pecl-psr.spec?id=5136b7f0e79f055e688f6c5bb4d2cc5e64258a38 SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-psr-0.4.0-2.fedora.src.rpm
Package is approved.
Thanks for the review SCL requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4885 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4886 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4887 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4888
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-pecl-psr
php-pecl-psr-0.4.0-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-830a4f8613
php-pecl-psr-0.4.0-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-a4af82fbaf
php-pecl-psr-0.4.0-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1949d5d62d
php-pecl-psr-0.4.0-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-a4af82fbaf
php-pecl-psr-0.4.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1949d5d62d
php-pecl-psr-0.4.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-830a4f8613
php-pecl-psr-0.4.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
php-pecl-psr-0.4.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
php-pecl-psr-0.4.0-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.