Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/phpunit/phpunit9.git/plain/phpunit9.spec?id=ad982d90aa219358e9f4901acb7de4e39fd7f8fd SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/phpunit9-9.0.0-1.remi.src.rpm Description: PHPUnit is a programmer-oriented testing framework for PHP. It is an instance of the xUnit architecture for unit testing frameworks. This package provides the version 9 of PHPUnit, available using the phpunit9 command. Documentation: https://phpunit.readthedocs.io/ Fedora Account System Username: remi New major version of phpunit, provided for parallel installation Already reviewed see bug #1671665 Change from previous version: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/phpunit/phpunit9.git/commit/?id=ad982d90aa219358e9f4901acb7de4e39fd7f8fd
Version 9.0.1 Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/phpunit/phpunit9.git/plain/phpunit9.spec?id=15740494fac13c020e2ccf69536162dc806bbcb7 SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/phpunit9-9.0.1-1.remi.src.rpm
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 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 1061 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/phpunit9/review-phpunit9/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. [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 20480 bytes in 3 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]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: phpunit9-9.0.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm phpunit9-9.0.1-1.fc33.src.rpm phpunit9.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xUnit -> x Unit, unit phpunit9.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/bin/phpunit9 /usr/bin/env php phpunit9.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phpunit9 phpunit9.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xUnit -> x Unit, unit 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Thanks for the review, and all the reviews of all dependencies ! btw, can you please set the review+ flag ?
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/phpunit9
FEDORA-2020-ba8dea8b6b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ba8dea8b6b
FEDORA-2020-698f8d0886 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-698f8d0886
phpunit9-9.0.1-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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-2020-698f8d0886
phpunit9-9.0.1-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-ba8dea8b6b
phpunit9-9.0.1-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
phpunit9-9.0.1-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.