Spec URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/php-pecl-ip2location.spec SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/php-pecl-ip2location-8.0.1-6.fedora.7.3.src.rpm Description: This PECL extension enables you to get the geo location information of an IP address, such as country, region or state, city, latitude and longitude, US ZIP code, time zone, Internet Service Provider (ISP) or company name, domain name, net speed, area code, weather station code, weather station name, mobile country code (MCC), mobile network code (MNC) and carrier brand, elevation, and usage type. Fedora Account System Username: remi Scratch build: https://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/php-pecl-ip2location-8.0.1-6.fedora.7.3.src.rpm Despite this extension is compatible with IP2location 8.0 and 8.1, I plan to wait for 8.1 to hit the stable repository before building it in stable branches
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52210783
1 more patch (for library 8.1.4) https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-ip2location.git/commit/?h=fedora&id=17843c615ee33d79000ec86bef989db7dd829e7d Spec URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/php-pecl-ip2location.spec SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/php-pecl-ip2location-8.0.1-8.fedora.7.3.src.rpm
- Release tag is weird: Release: 8%{?dist}%{!?nophptag:%(%{__php} -r 'echo ".".PHP_MAJOR_VERSION.".".PHP_MINOR_VERSION;')} Why do you need to add the PHP version to the release tag? Is that a thing specific to your repo that you forgot to change? Package approved, please check the aforementioned issue and it's counterpart in the changelog. 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. [-]: 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-pecl- ip2location/review-php-pecl-ip2location/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: php-pecl-ip2location-8.0.1-8.fc34.7.4.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-ip2location-debuginfo-8.0.1-8.fc34.7.4.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-ip2location-debugsource-8.0.1-8.fc34.7.4.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-ip2location-8.0.1-8.fc34.src.rpm php-pecl-ip2location.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) geo -> ego, Geo, go php-pecl-ip2location.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US geo -> ego, Geo, go php-pecl-ip2location.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 8.0.1-8 ['8.0.1-8.fc34.7.4', '8.0.1-8.7.4'] php-pecl-ip2location.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pecl.php.net/package/igbinary The read operation timed out php-pecl-ip2location.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) geo -> ego, Geo, go php-pecl-ip2location.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US geo -> ego, Geo, go php-pecl-ip2location.src: E: specfile-error sh: line 0: fg: no job control php-pecl-ip2location.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 45: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires: php(zend-abi) = %{php_zend_api} php-pecl-ip2location.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 46: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires: php(api) = %{php_core_api} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings.
> Release: 8%{?dist}%{!?nophptag:%(%{__php} -r 'echo ".".PHP_MAJOR_VERSION.".".PHP_MINOR_VERSION;')} > Why do you need to add the PHP version to the release tag? Is that a thing specific to your repo that you forgot to change? Yes, kind of Magic for my repo, will clean it, and also package URL Thanks for the review SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30263 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30264 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30265
For memory: cleanup: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-ip2location.git/commit/?h=fedora&id=4148ff708b312bd7c046b8afbafa4e4093cdf2d9
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-pecl-ip2location
FEDORA-2020-da825e18fe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-da825e18fe
FEDORA-2020-da825e18fe has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-da825e18fe \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-da825e18fe See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-3427ea21f9 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-3427ea21f9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3427ea21f9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-da825e18fe has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-3427ea21f9 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.